In My View

Pakistan vs Musharraf: Play for Rule of Law

Pakistan’s celebrated columnist, Ayyaz Amir, had called it a “judicial Kargil.” From an Odissi dancer in Lahore to a businessman in the city’s market, the unceremonious removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Ifthikar Hassan Chowdhury, had smacked of authoritarianism.

While that was familiar territory for them, the straw had still to break on the camel’s back. Mr Chowdhury was called to the famous Army House, where Gen Musharraf resides, and asked to resign at the end of a four hour long meeting.

According to some versions, the general had tried to strike a deal. He wanted the highest judicial officer of the country to go easy on his government.

The latter had lately been proving to be an irritant; not just for Musharraf government’s attempts to sell off public assets to private buccaneers, but also by claiming habeas corpus rights on people gone missing in the famous US-sponsored ‘War on Terrorism’ (WOT).

Whether Justice Chowdhury’s removal was an expression of good intent by Gen Musharraf towards the Americans – especially after the Cheney diatribe of late February - only those knowledgeable in Pakistan can tell.

But the people of Pakistan have spoken almost in one voice. They expressed their anger at the decision to remove Justice Chowdhury. Lawyers, judges and others took to the streets. Even though the journalists were slow in reacting – initially taken in by the government’s campaign of calumny against the CJP – they too pulled up their socks quickly. Across the board, they condemned the act of Pakistan’s president

Justice Chowdhury is a Punjabi Baloch. In an ethnically stratified society like Pakistan; with Balochistan and North West Frontier Province in turmoil, he quickly picked up support. Pakhtoonkhawa Milli Awami Party, reportedly the largest in the province, called for a general strike on the issue.

But many others had a different point of view. Some felt that the judiciary in Pakistan had it coming. They had turned over far too often at the behest of the military leadership. As Mr Hadi Shakil, president of the Balochistan High Court Association, put it: that with a general elections looming on the horizon, Pakistan’s president wanted the judiciary under his “full control.” “A message has been conveyed to all the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts that they should blindly support each step taken by the military regime. Otherwise, they will meet the same fate as the CJP,” he was reported as saying.

Even the charges against Justice Chowdhury were instructive in their content. He was accused of demanding helicopters, aircrafts and Mercedes Benzes at the drop of the hat. His son, a junior bureaucratic factotum was apparently favoured with promotions and prized postings at his bidding. The prestigious Daily Times of Pakistan had even speculated that he might have been fired for accepting a gift of a BMW car from a private individual.

There is a lesson here for Indian judiciary. When society gives some the right to pass judgment over others, it usually expects a standard of probity to be set – almost like ‘Caesar’s wife,’ beyond reproach. Clearly, Justice Chowdhury was not of that ilk, much likes his caped brethren across the border. So when he passed judgments over the acts of omission and commission of the government, they found it convenient to tar his image a wee bit.

Still, he has become a cause celebre in Pakistan. For his case has come up at a time when diverse political forces in the country are turning inimical to Gen Musharraf. With the impending polls, the otherwise discredited political parties – on numerous charges against corrupt leaders – like Pakistan Peoples’ Party and Pakistan Muslim League or the Jamaat have found a cause that resonates with the people. The case has even provided ammunition to those sections of Pakistan’s securocracy who would like to think that Gen Musharraf’s time was up.

They have watched with chagrin how Gen Musharraf had turned his back on the jihadi commerce, at least for a while. A distinctly possible peace with India could take away much of their privileges they enjoyed till now. Even the large defence appropriation on national resources could significantly decline, thus cutting short many ‘empires’ within Pakistan’s army and the hydra headed Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

On the other hand, Gen Musharraf too appears to be losing his deft touch visible in the way he had dumped Taliban after 9/11 or had sought to cap the increasing secessionist pressure in the country’s north-west. He has sought to postpone the final indictment of Justice Chowdhury by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) of the country. The SJC has adjourned till April the hearing of the case.

Ayyaz Amir had predicted that the impact of this “judicial Kargil” could be far more damning for the general as this was closer home politically than the chilling heights of Kashmir. Indeed, some human rights activists have speculated that the rescheduling of the case would give them more time to rally bigger numbers and regroup with added vigour.

If that happens, whatever be the outcome, rule of law in Pakistan will win for the first time in its history. And that would be salutary for the public opinion across the divide. Unless, of course Pakistan’s army steps in to stymie a democratic exercise, we will know for whom.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with Mathrubhumi. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in