Two Courts, Why Not?

As the judicial imbroglio thickens the air between two coalition partners, the speculative analyses and predictions keep creeping through the op-ed columns and current affairs talk shows on umpteen TV channels in Pakistan. Whatever the analysts say, however serenity and reason PPP leadership tries to bring to the negotiating table, the fact remains that it’s not the dearth of solutions that is leading to uncertainty in reinstatement of judges, its lack of political commitment to do so. The solutions that have came up so far range from an executive order to a constitutional amendment or the act of Parliament. Considering the significant moves on the part of political movers and shakers, it is becoming all the more necessary to reach an upshot as soon as possible. The more time is spent on proving that every proposed way out has more cons than pros, the easier it would be for the anti democratic forces to draw the conclusion that no solution is possible for this political riddle.  

The recent proposal, which was instantly denied by the Prime Minister, was that of establishment of two supreme courts. The idea perceptibly seems to be mala fide and an attempt to appease the lawyer / civil society pressure and placate a presidency that is shamelessly being lactated by the world powers. But at the same time, it deserves a serious thinking and analysis. The two Supreme Courts would mean a judicial system that allows the power of constitutional review to concentrate within a single judicial body. This proposal has a history of being in force in various countries of Western Europe alongside new democracies of Eastern Europe; and has displayed a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.

The presence of Constitutional courts gives rise to the anomalies of overlapping jurisdiction of Federal Constitutional Court and the supreme civil court, their absence critically contradicts with the principles of sovereignty of parliament and judicial review especially in democracies like Pakistan and India whose constitution remains a major source of this paradox. In India, where no Constitutional Court exists, the constitution has successfully fought back to be the supreme law of the land; in Pakistan, it still is a political instrument that every regime uses to consolidate its power. This fundamental difference in political cultures of both the countries makes them incomparable as far as judicial system is concerned. The emerging democracies in the European world, on the other hand, might offer an attractive judicial package to be replicated here in the backdrop of fierce battle between the state and the judiciary in Pakistan over last one year - a case much similar to postwar Germany when Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) was established.

The German Constitutional Court had to encounter five branches of specialized courts already well established in the pre-Natzi tradition of German judiciary. The specialized courts had to overcome the failure of their immediate past, whereas, the Constitutional Court was offered a considerable chance of success by the climate of postwar reform. If in Pakistan, the existing Supreme Court takes on the jurisdiction of civil, criminal and administrative cases and a new Federal Constitutional Court is established with the mandate of constitutional interpretation, it is expected to correspond well with the democratic tradition of separation of power and centrality of constitution.

It should, however, be kept in mind that developing a commonly accepted model of cohabitation at the supreme judicial level will be extremely difficult and would require stronger political commitment from parliament, the existing Supreme Court as well as from other power players. The answer to fundamental question of distribution of judicial power between the two courts would largely depend on the intent of establishment of such bi-faceted judicial system that divorces American system of diffused judicial review. If the sole objective is to keep one single individual from heading the apex constitutional court, and limiting his power to civil and criminal suits, the new system may lack vision and design to sustain and might not produce popularly desired results.

The apprehensions of some experts, as reported in media over last few days, about the establishment of Constitutional Court in Pakistan weigh much lesser compared to the positives of it. If established on the following lines, the system can, by design, respond to most of the apprehensions:

1.      The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) should be structurally independent with respect to the Executive Branch and to the Supreme Court

2.      The FCC should be mandated to develop the concept of direct applicability of the Constitution (including its guarantees of fundamental rights) and to impose that concept on other segments of the judicial branch.

3.      Procedures of the constitutional complaints should be such designed that they should extend the applicability of complaints to all the situation involving conflicts with fundamental rights of individual liberty

4.      The FCC, while preserving the last word in the wake of a controversy, should not claim a monopoly over application of the Constitution but, rather, should act as a coordinator of that process.

5.      The FCC should be vested with the competence to review ordinary statutes and other legal regulations as well as to annul them in case of unconstitutionality or nonconformity with any international instrument to which Pakistan is a party. Such decisions of the FCC should be universally binding i.e., also binding on all other courts, including Supreme Court.

6.      Each court (Higher and Supreme) while resolving an individual case should consider whether the statutory provisions based on which the judgment will be give, are in conformity of the constitution or not. In case of a doubt expressed by the complainant or the judge herself about the constitutionality of such provision, the judge should refer that issue to the FCC as a legal question. The decision of FCC should be binding on the other courts to be applied to the case(s).

7.      The FCC’s composition should be such that all the provinces and other federating units are equally represented. While smoothening public opinion on any set of judicial solutions, we need to keep in mind that present crisis has a hidden opportunity – the opportunity of making our judicial system more relevant to a parliamentary democracy and constitutionalism. Change is sometimes uneasy, but it surely bears the fruit of development. And the key to change is . . . let go of fear!

The Story of My Beloved

The story of my beloved has taken many turns, pleasant and unpleasant, cheery and miserable, heartwarming and upsetting, pleasing and distressing. Some times it seems to be ‘child of lesser god’. And at others, it appears to be the victim of sheer credulity of those who gave birth to it and disregard of its guardians. Who is this ill-fated fellow? It’s none other than my beloved country. 

Born out of wedlock, it showed the world one of the chain products of the end of colonial era. Those at the helm of affairs at that point in time, probably knew very well what unfortunate course of actions they’ve allowed to happen for superficial reasons. They wrote the history with a vision to push the posterity in unfathomable oblivion. And sons and daughters of my age and the younger fell prey to immeasurable degrees of historical and geo-political visionless-ness at the hands of raped history that was taught throughout the decades. All the voices of dissent were termed against the spirit of “patriotism” – a dubious airy term that did not have a definite shape, colour and intensity. It acquired whatever shape and colour “they” wanted it to have. And it was “they” who continued to determine the level of ‘Muslamaaniyat’ of fellow citizens thereby nationalizing the religion.

People, who historically had been against the territorial concept of state and restricting Musalmaans to the geographical boundaries as opposed to a more totalitarian concept of Pan-Islamism, suddenly started dictating the terms to govern the new born country. Who let that happen? Probably the ones who had, besides professing the greater ideals of humanism, equality of opportunities and political participation of the socially excluded Musalmaans – the values far greater than blind theocracy, carried on with permitting the pregnant slogans like, Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia: La Ilaha Illallah. As an insightful and astute statesman, Jinnah soon comprehended the gravity of the turn of events and tried to mend the error (deliberate or un-deliberate) in judgment of the popular sentiment on the part of the political coterie of the time that led the euphoria to an unprecedented hike. He delivered a marvelously drafted speech on August 11, 1947, refuting any likelihood of a theocratic state in the making. The speech, understandably, was put under the carpet after his death.

During his very short post-partition life time, he tried his best to mend the ways the politicians had chosen as the mean to perpetuate their consolidation of power. The unbridled political cronies of that period went berserk after the death of their Quaid. The problems of governance resulted in a political penumbra that was unmanageable and irrepressible by them on account of being under trained in the traditions of democracy and business of politics. The country being diversified ethnically, linguistically and culturally, posed various problems of governance. The most intoxicating one being the tribulation of keeping un-natural adherents united. The air of distress and feelings of downright disillusionment of people of these diverse federating units accelerated the centrifugal forces amid oft repeated Indian apprehensions about sustenance of the juvenile country. The situation compelled the leaders to create something that could gel the culturally and ethnically disparate people together.

In the backdrop of a campaign for Pakistan run mainly by the British-leaning Muslim feudal triggering religious sentiments in order to gain maximum popular support for a bizarre political solution, the best solution that appeared to those in control was to continue with religious question as the prime concern of country’s polity. And that’s the point where things started to take a turn for worst. The right refused to budge in for slightest of disagreement. Politicians, out of their vested interests, continued to bow before the Islamists throughout Pakistan’s history checkered with intermittent short periods of democratic respite as well as longer autocratic regimes run largely by the supreme ‘protectionist’ institution of the country.

On the other hand, the ‘Protectionist Inc.’ was allowed to claim its political role in early years of Pakistan. The young country failed to inherit politicians with a farsighted vision, experience of parliamentary democracy and acquaintance with political nuances of the time, necessary to lead the popular prophecy. The lot that was available was content finding easy answers to strategic questions. Appointments of political personages at public offices without elections and a lack of unified inspiration to run the business of country on a dialogue and consensus-based governance structure took it away from democratic norms and traditions. The scripture of country’s security was written overnight to shift the attention from failures to deal with brawling issues of ethnicity and socio-political hegemony of a political powerful group. The notion of security took the rulers on the gates of Protectionist Inc. that ended up in continually empowering this institution with almost no accountability and frequent opportunities for it to exercise power beyond its ambit of security.

On economic front, the early rulers, wrongly or rightly, decided to sell the balance-of-power theory of the world powers in a post World War II scenario. The one with an offer of larger ‘profit base’ as opposed to the one more just but politically closer to India – the enemy, won the game. It’s the same point in time when Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi warned to beware of the capitalist scheme but in vain. Pakistan succumbed to the glittering capitalist west and showed emerging communist neighborhood a thumb down in “larger interest” of the country. The shrewd capitalist used the religious euphoria of newly born nation that was in search of its identity after divorcing five thousand years of glorious history.

How much we gained and lost due to this policy, are questions the answer of which has now come to be known to all and sundry. But the story doesn’t end here. My beloved endured severest of blows in its face. It saw a nerve wrecking war within, it saw its daughters raped by those who were trusted for protecting it, it saw its own sons slaughtered in the name of internal security and saving federation. To the extent that its eastern arm was maimed. And when its shoulder was bleeding after the painful amputation, those who were responsible for the situation, started a high pitched drama to shift the focus from their failure to the alleged failure of the political parties. An excruciating defeat for which the people were not taken into confidence, they were not prepared for the results very well calculated by the army during the whole incidence. The scars were deep. The wounds were hemorrhagic.

 The story still goes on. People were deceived, democracy was robbed, elected premier was hanged, a long black night prevailed. When my beloved saw a small ray of hope by comforting light of democracy, it turned out to be mirage. The same religious fanaticism was flourishing, political exclusion was at its peek, and lack of accountability had become a contagious epidemic, which had now infested politicians as well as other vital institutions. It was only then, that a strange thing happened. A good man of military came to the rescue. Beating the drums of equal opportunities, meritocracy, consensus-based governance, accountability for all, promises of probable economic boom, mixed slogans of eradicating poverty and hopes to become home of multinationals and what not? The civil society experienced a much desired political orgasm.

No, not a happy ending folks! It was only after that climax of excitement did the people find out that they were used as medieval concubines. Same era of sham democracy, exclusion, disregard of democratic institutions and now offense to the prime instrument of justice had returned with all its “pomp and glory”. My beloved is blubbering. My question from the most potent man of this country is: Is there any relief fro my beloved? When?

The writer is National Project Manager in a project of UNDP for parliamentary development in Pakistan. Her views do not represent this organization. Email:. mirashaam@gmail.com 

Pakistan: A Meshwork of Political Somersaults

Pakistan treads through most dangerous decade of its political history, people keep witnessing densely shaded political kaleidoscope. Things have been especially precarious during past one week. Amid an intense public desire for the judiciary to play its independent role in country’s political wellbeing, the apex court passed a judgment not very popular. Nothing could have been a surer recipe for political chaos than an adamant soldier to get re-elected as president, somersaulting politicians, a rubber-stamp parliament, a puppet executive, a divided judiciary and confused public.

Life has never been bed of roses for Pakistan’s uniformed president, General Pervez Musharraf after March 9, 2007 when top judge refused to succumb to the pressure exerted by the government to leave office. Invigorated by people’s support, judiciary risked going against the will of the government and first time in Pakistan’s history, people got an inkling of judiciary’s independence. Under the hang-over of a successful campaign for the restoration of Chief Justice of Pakistan, lawyers’ community announced to launch a campaign for the restoration of “true democracy” and for a president without uniform. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the aged leader of extreme right winged orthodox religio-political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, joined hands with Imran Khan the only MP from Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf, for filing a petition against the election of president in uniform in the apex court.

Once again, people’s heightened expectations from recently got “independence” of judiciary bucked up the lawyers to make the petition a rallying point. On September 29, however, the Supreme Court saved the day for Musharraf by dismissing both the petitions on “technical grounds” for not being maintainable.  Lawyers and civil society, intrigued but not disappointed by this judicial drama stretched through the past two weeks, vowed to fight the battle through the Election Commission of Pakistan. “The decision of the apex court that the petitions challenging General Pervez Musharraf’s taking part in presidential election in uniform is not maintainable, might be on the grounds that it was premature as at the time of filing the petition General Musharraf had not filed his nomination papers as presidential candidate before the Election Commission,” senior lawyer Justice (Retd) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim said and added “In fact, nothing has been decided still and all issues raised in different petitions will be challenged again in a more effective manner now”.

The lawyers, now immersed in political game, announced their candidate for presidential race. Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmad, a respected former judge who had to leave office when he refused to take oath under notorious Provisional Constitutional Order introduced by Musharraf immediately after his taking office of the Chief Executive of Pakistan. Proposed and seconded by religious parties’ alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Wajihuddin filed his nomination papers on September 27. Things went more baffling when Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) nominated Makhdoom Ameen Faheem as its Presidential candidate.

All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM), an alliance of opposition parties minus PPP, went on with their decision of resigning from the National Assembly and dissolution of NWFP Provincial Assembly, where MMA, a prominent member of APDM, was in power. The decision has not been an easier one for Jamiat-e-Ulamai Islam Fazlur Rehman group (JUI-F), a coalescing unit of MMA. Posed with potent threats of internal rifts that might amount to its ultimate breakage, MMA parleys took just too long to decide about the resignations issue. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the JUI Chief, popularly dubbed as ‘soft opposition’ and ‘the king of double talk’, went head over heals to convince party mates not to resign. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the Jamat-e-Islami (JI) leader, however, took it as a threat to his party’s credibility and insisted on resignations as decided by the All Parties Conference convened in early July by Mian Nawaz Sharif.

The complex political horizon got thickened by PPP’s resolve to “support democracy” by “negotiating” with the General for a broader national reconciliation. Amidst the statements of “no deal is being sealed” by Benazir Bhutto, the news of unfreezing her accounts and dismissal of corruption cases against her kept pouring in. While cooing the song of democracy Bhutto kept on negotiating with the front men of the General for a “national consensus” formula that would include her three point agenda; repealing of the constitutional amendment barring third term of the Prime Minister, dismissal of all corruption cases on politicians since 1985, and doffing off of the uniform by the president.

It was not a rocket science to predict the status of General – Bhutto deal after a least expected move from the presidency on October 2, of announcing the withdrawal of all cases against Bhutto and nominating General Ishfaq Kiani, former spy chief, as Chief of Army Staff. The next day, Maulana Fazlur Rehman together with fellow clerics resigned from the National Assembly. His clever move of announcing dissolution of provincial Assembly on September 29, almost four days before the scheduled dissolution, gave government enough time to move a No-Confidence Motion against the MMA Chief Minsiter (According to the Constitution, a Chief Minister cannot dissolve the Assembly if a No-Confidence Motion comes against him). Exactly according to the expectations, the Provincial Assembly opposition members (the ruling party at federal level) filed a No-Confidence motion. To counter which, smart strategy should have been to take a vote of confidence next day and go for dissolution. On the contrary, the Chief Minister adjourned the session till Oct 8 – two days after the presidential polls.

Benazir Bhutto, meanwhile, successfully crossed all milestones of negotiations with the General and agreed on a “National Reconciliation” Formula in lieu of which, PPP would not resign from the parliament thus ensuring a legitimacy of presidential polls, which would have been scared by a sheer lack of legitimacy in the absence of entire opposition from the House. A National Assembly Session was heard to be summoned on Oct 3, but was delayed due to ongoing parleys with Bhutto. As a successful breakthrough on these parleys could lead to hurried issuance of an Ordinance, which can only be done when Parliament is not in session, the National Assembly session was delayed for two more days. 

As a confident president calmly announces his resolve to contest presidential elections while in uniform, and working on post election business details with Bhutto, Justice ®Wajihuddin Ahmad, another presidential hopeful, moves a petition to the Supreme Court for a stay on presidential elections. After three days of rigorous debate, the court adjourned on Oct 5, a day prior to the elections, to Oct 17 refusing a stay on elections and barring any announcement of results till Oct 17. The decision makes both sides happy and hopeful.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is left alone by JI, its coalescing partner after a rift over resigning from the provincial Assembly of NWFP. While Maulana was facing sheer opposition from his own party members against resigning from NWFP Assembly,  he was consoled by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the top leader of the ruling Muslim League who issued orders to his party men in the Provincial Assembly of NWFP to withdraw the No-Confidence motion. It has taken all the air from the Opposition balloon, leaving JI and Nawaz League as a shaky opponent.

As these lines are written, presidency is announcing the issuance of National Reconciliation Ordinance. The life seems bed of roses for Musharraf once again!

The Octagon of Governance: Where Do We Stand

Amid various international country ranking reports where Pakistan is fast approaching the victory stand of corruption, terrorism, lack of accountability, transparency and rule of law despite being a front line state in war against terror, one is inclined to see the larger canvas of overall governance in the country.

The term governance is being increasingly used in the latest development literature, among development professionals and political analysts all over the world. The gospel of governance, in simple terms, is the way where certain decisions are taken (or not taken) and implemented (or not implemented) to manage a society’s political, economic and social affairs. The onus of all the evils of a society is conveniently put on bad governance. Major donors and international financial institutions are basing their loaning and aid strategies in developing countries on the demand from the respective governments for a broader reform agenda ensuring good governance. In the presence of these “chaperons” for good governance, one can still see all the elements that contribute to the worst form of governance in the entire developing generally and in Pakistan particularly.

It becomes imperative to have a closer look at the term and its components in order to discern Pakistan’s performance on this pitch. Good governance, as the Governance Matters Report 2005 of our financial Vatican – the World Bank – warns us, has eight important elements: accountability, transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness & efficiency, inclusiveness, stability and last but not least, rule of law. A steady performance and progress on these eight indicators would make the octagon of governance look balanced and poised.

Accountability – a self explanatory but largely misunderstood and abused term in Pakistan’s context – is a measure of the degree to which people are able to participate in selecting their government, have freedoms of expression and association alongside a free media. The need of making public officials and people’s representatives answerable for government behavior to the entity from which they derive authority can not be overemphasized. In countries with established democratic ethos and strong egalitarian roots, the accountability is ensured by audit covenants at one level and broadly elected legislatures and narrowly conceived committees etc at another. In Pakistan a simulation of democracy is doing the trick. Pakistan’s percentile rank (0 to 100) for accountability in governance among world’s largest populated twenty countries was 12.6 in 2005. Pakistan was fourth country from bottom, while China and Vietnam stood at the base of accountability pyramid. In South Asia, Pakistan was ranked second last among eight countries in 2005. The least accountable governance was carried by Afghanistan.

Transparency, correlated to accountability explains the accessibility of general public to information and government rules, regulations, procedures and decisions. The difficulty with ensuring transparency is that public access to information might very easily be restricted by the same authority that is responsible for providing that information. So, it is crucial to give the freedom of information a legal and legislative cover. Pakistan, having a scarcely envisioned Freedom of Information Act (which never saw itself explored by the parliamentarians on the floor of the House), is not displaying a pleasing picture on this front. With a country average of 16.1, Pakistan stands at the third least transparent country in its governance practices, rules, regulations etc. among South Asian countries closely beating Bangladesh and Afghanistan with country averages of 15.2 and 10.3 respectively. Maldives secures its place as the most transparent country with very tight regulatory framework among eight South Asian countries having a country average for transparency at 66.2 in 2005.

As far as government effectiveness is concerned, it’s a bit tricky to comprehend the concept and its relevance to good governance. As per definition accepted by most international governance assessment institutions, it measures the quality of civil and public service and degree to which both these services are independent from political pressures. It also gauges the quality of policy formulation and process of its implementation along with credibility of government’s commitment to such policies. Pakistan stands at fifth position among eight South Asian countries having a country average for effectiveness of 34 as opposed to Bhutan at number one with 64.6, India at number three with country average of 51.7, Nepal at number seven with 14.3 and Afghanistan at number eight with country average of 9.1. It demonstrates a devious kaleidoscope of political activity related to government effectiveness. Countries like Bhutan and Maldives may show higher averages of government effectiveness on account of being governed by autocracy and / or oligarchy, which leaves little space for non-state actors to dissent government’s actions. Countries with stronger democratic values may show a mid level average like that of India where government’s effectiveness indicators may confront a potent civil society interference. Countries like Nepal for example may show a major diversion and stay at the bottom as far as effectiveness stats are concerned, in the presence of a strong people’s opposition to autocracy. That explains Pakistan’s comparatively higher average compared to other indicators!

Rule of law, an important cornerstone of governance in any country is the measure of the level of social agents’ confidence in and abiding by the rules of society in particular, the value of writ enforcement, the police, the judiciary and the likelihood of crime and violence (we may use the word terrorism complying with emerging international linguistics). Pakistan ranks sixth among eight South Asian countries with a country average at 24.2 compared with Bhutan at number one with 64.7, Maldives at number two at 60, India at number three with an average of 56.4, Sri Lanka at number four with 54.1, Nepal at number five with 25.1, Bangladesh with 19.8 and Afghanistan with 1.4 at numbers seven and eight respectively. A country with greater value for democracy and people’s voices may display foreign and domestic policies with greater mass acceptance. A factor that minimizes people’s concerns resultantly less violent attitudes, more people-friendly policies, greater political and social freedom and social safety nets. All contributing to a just and equitable society thus leading to rule of law.

Conceptually and rationally, all these elements of governance support and reinforce each other. Accountability is related to citizens participation in decision making processes, which in turn is linked to transparency, information openness, government responsiveness to people’s needs and concerns, government efficiency and predictable decision making of autonomous government agencies. Similarly, the transparency and accessibility can not be ensured with out legal frameworks to balance people’s right to information against governments’ right to confidentiality along side a wide institutional acceptance to accountability. Finally, a democratic system facilitates governments to take informed decisions, incorporate people’s interests and voices in policy formulation, a free media to act as autonomous watchdog that props predictable outcome of governance. It, therefore, appears to be an unmistakable reality that the flag of good governance can only be unfurled under the bright sunlight of democratic system. The octagon has to be perfectly figured if soft image of Pakistan is to be popularized!

 

The writer is National Project Manager in a joint project of UNDP, Inter-Parliamentary Union and Parliament of Pakistan. Her views do not represent any of the three institutions.

Freedom at Sunrise

And finally there was an “action” by the government on Jamia Hafsa – Lal Masjid (JH – LM) duo leaving many dead. Started rather haphazardly on July 3, 2007, the stand off met its bloody end on July 10, 2007 with the death of Abdul Rasheed Ghazi (ARG)- the Naib Khateeb of Lal Masjid and earlier arrest of Maulana Abdul Aziz (MAA), his elder brother and Lal Masjid’s Khateeb. The seven day wrestle saw many a dramatic turns of “negotiations” between government and the Maulanas. Many conspiracy theories on the speculations about government’s intentions of this operation emerged, examining the issue at its facade. A linear analysis, one would argue, has always been proved to be misleading and in this case, it would be dangerous.

With the media hype that the whole episode got during its course, one of the conspiracy theories that got to the front pages was selection of timing for the action to correspond with All Parties Conference and the other one was, much talked about, president’s amour propre with Washington. While the two may seem quite convincing and one might find couple of reasons to believe on, but the fact remains that complex nature of problem needs a profound examination. Fighting extremism might seem, at face, western agenda especially in the backdrop of events unfolding after 9/11. One still wonders why it should not be Pakistan’s own concern to fight extremism. Why any bid to pull this society towards egalitarianism is immediately tucked in the pockets of west when it seems to be most pressing need for our own social order to free it from the shackles of radical, intolerant and obscurantist forces that are pushing it closer to the medieval era day by day.

Pakistani society as it was in fifties or even till mid seventies had no space for mushroom growth of religious seminaries nor had people shown any penchant towards them as educational model for their children. The phenomenon started with bipolar world order’s political encroachment in Pakistan's religio-social landscape. This intrusion proved to be incurable malady for Pakistan’s then forward-thinking society. The jihadi sentiment got official shield, obscurantism was made to acquire popular approval using state controlled media, secret agencies were deployed not only to coach unripe youth in tactics of war but also to instill hate propaganda against godless communism to counter it through a new definition of Jihad. Education system was gradually “reformed” to fit new framework of national strategy and to produce a generation with a world vision easy to be manipulated to guard Islam against atheist Russia through Muslim Brethren of Afghanistan. No wonder, the militant mode of enforcing Islamic Shariah got acceptance and prevalent most forcefully in the areas bordering or near Afghanistan.

Everything happened according to the plan till mission accomplished. World turned to a “tranquil” unipolar order with unquestioned authority of single world power. The power brokers within the system went nasty for accumulation of wealth and reinforcing economic hegemony ensuing a strong and violent sense of nationalism in the target countries.  Arab nationalism gave rise to a phenomenon that let its course defined by events like 9/11. The events that gave a shock treatment to the world powers, who in a flash turned against their all time allies – the Islamists. The game plan was ready to give nationalist aspect of Arab backlash a shroud of clash of civilizations. All guns were pointed towards the “Islamists” around the world. The opportunist Pakistani rulers, who historically speaking have never let any opportunity go waste, grabbed the moment and went hostile to the religious extremists. The antagonistic statements about the Islamists, however, were released only for the consumption of an infuriated west and small minority of liberals at home, who took them to face value. The clandestine support to the obscurantist continued in order to justify a longer rule by the “enlightened moderates” than would have otherwise been expected.

Some of the elements in secret agencies within the system internalized the “Islamist” agenda to the extent that it became awfully difficult for them to pursue new line of action as dictated to them by the new policy. Musharraf government, well known for its honeymooning with the liberal agenda, was not ready to succumb to the internal pressures, at the same time, was not ready to take bolder unpopular steps to uproot extremism. It could surely not sustain external pressures when it came to Tribal Areas’ ripe patronage of militant Islam, which was surely a product of military – mulla marriage of convenience during last two and a half decades. This forced divorce of clergy from military in these areas provided safe corridor to foreign and native militants towards urban centers of the country. Whereas Lal Masjid cannot be easily dubbed as the result of this policy alone, it surely shows government’s leniency rather investment in religious extremism since long.

Since 2004 when a linkage of LM with Al-Qaida came to the surface following amnesty granted to LM by powers that be, the LM administration had been at the forefront of Islamic doctrinaire movement. The events dubbed by the media and civil society as challenging ‘writ of the state’ led the issue to the prime news space in electronic and print media. And that was it! Extreme right of the center forces within military and secret agencies were able to take it to the hype where it could not go un-noticed by most indifferent quarters of society. When most mature of political analysts give credit to Musharaf government for a conspiracy hatched to appease US pressure by taking violent action on LM –JH complex, one is forced to think about the forces that’ve actually benefited from this whole imbroglio. 

Can’t it be the forces who wanted to embarrass Musharraf by making a fool of him trumpeting hollow rhetoric of fighting extremism on hundreds of dead bodies? Who has benefited by deploying huge number of military force right under Musharraf’s nose in the heart of federal capital? Does anyone know that invisible power responsible for delaying any legitimate action – non violent – on LM-JH administration. Islamabad has seen deployment of police and rangers around LM-JH around half a dozen times during last couple of months. Something happened at eleventh hour to stop any firm action by law enforcing agencies.

Finally and suddenly something happened in the power quarters that an action against miscreants of LM-JH was started with a siege of the complex. A strategy first christened by the media as the best possible option. On exactly the second day of siege, however, media chose to take a u-turn in opining about the strategy. Whereas one cannot go without praising the role of media in covering the events during past few months especially last couple of weeks during which at least one of the media men lost life leaving couple of others seriously injured. One can not justify media distancing itself from its actual role of observing and reporting, and assuming the role of negotiators and mediators. Agreed, that the intense moments anticipating deaths of hundreds and sleepless nights were telling on the media persons, but how could one reconcile with all those grumpy Talats, grouchy Hamids and sulky Kamrans suddenly turned impatient to intervene and act as go-between government and Ghazi. How could one justify Ghazi’s unbridled access to media till last moments of his life to interact with public opinion freely? How could one give one good reason of Ghazi’s unhindered mobile signals in fourth level under the ground basement of LM while I cant receive a phone call on my cell in the lower ground portion of my house due to completely absent signals? Can someone explain absence of all the background sounds of firing and blasts when Ghazi kept talking to electronic media airing his calls live? And mother of all questions: how come media was covering it live despite the presence of as intolerant an agency as PEMRA that could penalize the TV channel with stroke of pen had the powers disliked the coverage?

It remains a pity that almost all the rational scrutiny has been replaced by a linear and shallow emotional imagery of the LM-JH event. Ghazi, a criminal mind, who openly advocated engagement of energetic youth in forceful seizure of all the institutions and violent attack on all the individuals who do not conform to the ideals of his own interpretation of Islam, is being portrayed as a symbol of resistance. Who is benefiting from this anti-operation propaganda? Surely, it’s not Musharraf, or inversely speaking, the progressive and liberal segments within the government. Powers who left the operation look like a complete fiasco on the part of government might seem too intimidating for the media to be resisted and even to be mentioned. But once again, media’s role is more than appreciable here. By making the aberration too obvious, media has actually reported it, if one has the ability to read between the lines.

The dangerous turn, which this whole event has taken, however, needs to be addressed by the government sensibly if it wants to take the liberal agenda forward, with whatever intentions. The ones who’ve turned unanimous approval of the operation by masses into a bout of sympathy towards militants and disapproval of the operation is rather a strong signal. This should be the beginning of Operation Silence – silence of the silent power brokers who have often brought irreparable embarrassment to the nation. A divorce of military-mullah combine that is in the offing is a potent sign of opportunity egalitarianism is having right now. Let it not be wasted.