Business Recorder Editorial December 24, 2019

Foreign policy debacle

What was being hinted at in media reports over the last few days has now been exposed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Speaking to Turkish media on November 20, 2019, President Erdogan without pulling any punches said Saudi Arabia had coerced Pakistan into skipping the Kuala Lumpur summit by threatening to expel the four million Pakistanis working in Saudi Arabia and replacing them with Bangladeshis and withdrawing the amount deposited in the State Bank of Pakistan last year for shoring up foreign exchange reserves. Erdogan concluded that Pakistan had to fall in line due to its economic difficulties. The Saudi ambassador in Islamabad has responded to Erdogan’s statement and termed it incorrect. It may be recalled that Malaysian Prime Minister (PM) Mahathir Mohammad, President Erdogan and PM Imran Khan in a meeting in New York in September 2019 had decided to hold the Kuala Lumpur summit of Muslim countries to address the woes of the Muslim world regarding their being left behind in terms of development by the non-Muslim countries, long standing issues such as Palestine, Kashmir, etc. Although Imran Khan was one of the three prime movers of the summit idea, he had to pull out at the eleventh hour after his visit to Riyadh to meet the Saudi leadership failed to persuade the latter, who instead threatened withdrawal of economic and financial help to Pakistan that it could ill afford. Imran Khan did call Mahathir to explain the reasons for his last minute withdrawal, and the latter even called Saudi King Salman to clear the air of suspicions and allegations being hurled by the Saudi-dominated Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the summit as weakening Islam because it was viewed as an attempt to create a new platform to unite the Muslim world instead of the OIC. The divisions in the Muslim world are hardly a secret, and the turnout of 20 countries in Kuala Lumpur instead of the 57 members of OIC invited showed the mirror to the ground realities. Erdogan and Mahathir have been critical of the OIC for being little more than a hand-wringing club when it comes to the issues facing the Muslim world.

The Pakistani Foreign Office’s new spokeswoman has issued a bland statement trying to paper over the debacle that has damaged Pakistan’s relations with both sides of the Muslim world’s divide. This can hardly be described as good foreign policy handling. The style of working of PM Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government, apart from other complaints regarding domestic affairs, has now been exposed by this foreign policy debacle. What has transpired could have been predicted, if PM Imran Khan had taken the trouble to have the Kuala Lumpur summit proposal weighed as to its pros and cons by the expert input of the Foreign Office. The only consolation Pakistan’s wounded pride can now boast of after this debacle is that Malaysia has clarified that it, Turkey and Pakistan are still on board regarding a joint television channel to combat Islamophobia worldwide. Perhaps Imran Khan forgot that the Saudis and the UAE were already seething at the snub by Pakistan’s parliament during the previous Nawaz Sharif government to the former’s request for sending Pakistani troops to aid the Saudi coalition’s part in the Yemen war. That decision proved correct for Pakistan’s national interest, which dictates that we should not get dragged into the region’s armed conflicts. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was also prominent at the Kuala Lumpur summit, and his presence may have acted as the red rag to the Saudis. Pakistan is attempting to play a balancing act between its Shia neighbour Iran and the Saudi-led Sunni Arab states, a policy entirely in line with Pakistan’s interests. The ticklish part of that balancing act of course is to keep Riyadh mollified while retaining good relations with Tehran. Let the government learn from this debacle not to rush in where angels fear to tread and formulate its foreign policy in the light of its economic vulnerabilities and desire to stay out of conflicts that divide and wrack the Muslim world at present.

AGHS created voicepk.net on Twitter - Editorial

Students’ March

Students throughout Pakistan (around 60 cities and towns) came out in a march on November 29, 2019 to demand the restoration of student unions, higher allocations for education, lowering fees to provide access to education to poor students, and a host of other demands on issues that affect the youth in the educational field. Three notable characteristics of the march were: the unprecedented unity of the students, the leading role played by women students, and the slogans, placards and speeches in favour of a progressive Pakistan. None of these demands were against the law or Constitution, the rallies were orderly and peaceful, and no untoward incidents were seen.

For their pains of raising the universal demands of all students across the country, six of the organisers and 300 unnamed participants had sedition charges placed on them. Alamgir Wazir, one of the student leaders, was whisked away from Punjab University Lahore and remains incarcerated. The six organisers have either obtained or are in the process of getting bail before arrest. The government of Imran Khan is red-faced because some of their leaders had supported the students’ demands. This reveals the movers of these sedition cases as being other than the civilian government, and arguably the real power centre.

Business Recorder Editorial December 19, 2019

Musharraf’s sentence

The special court trying former COAS and president General Pervez Musharraf (retd) has through a short order found him guilty of high treason and delivered a split punishment 2-1, with the dissenting judge recommending life imprisonment rather than the death sentence imposed by the majority. The range of responses to this unprecedented verdict fall within the predictable. First and foremost, the army through its DG ISPR has expressed its dismay at the outcome, strongly criticising the verdict as delivered in haste while ignoring due legal process, including the constitution of a special court, denial of the fundamental right of self-defence, and undertaking individual-specific proceedings. Further, that the verdict has been received with a lot of pain and anguish by the rank and file of the military. The charges on which Musharraf was arraigned included the imposition of an Emergency on November 3, 2007 (thereby abrogating the Constitution) and forcibly confining more than 60 judges in their residences. While the defence counsel of Musharraf and the government and its allies have argued against the judgement in absentia as denying the defendant an opportunity to record his statement, the fact is, according to the special court, that Musharraf was offered at least six opportunities to record his statement in one manner or the other but failed to do so. It was held therefore that having been pronounced an absconder whose properties were seized as a result of non-appearance, the accused had forfeited his right of a defence. As to ‘haste’, the facts are noteworthy. The case was filed in 2013, Musharraf was indicted in 2014, but left Pakistan for Dubai in 2016 on medical grounds. He has not returned since and is presently reportedly seriously ill. The government, in the shape of the Attorney General of Pakistan has expressed its intention to appeal against the verdict once the detailed judgement is available, which should be in the next few days. Again predictably, the opposition parties, almost to a man, have appreciated and celebrated the verdict as strengthening democracy and constitutional rule.

The unprecedented charging and trial of a former COAS and president is truly an epochal, historic event. This is true even if the final result on appeal turns out different from the special court’s finding and punishment. It would have been inconceivable in the past to even consider such a course against a former chief of the most powerful state institution. Despite the fact that a succession of army chiefs mounted military coups in our history, thereby theoretically inviting the serious charge of high treason since they abrogated or held in suspension the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, the superior judiciary invariably upheld their actions on the grounds of the infamous doctrine of necessity, which were also validated by whatever parliaments were created in the wake of these coups. That is why Pervez Musharraf escaped any consequences for his 1999 coup and later tripped himself up by his ill-advised actions in 2007. It could be argued that the verdict may not entirely survive an appeal and even if it does, seems unlikely to be implemented by any stretch of the imagination. However, the army as an institution has unnecessarily involved itself in controversy by responding in the manner it has. In fact its very own formulation of ‘individual-specific proceedings’ could be turned on its head to advise the institution not to get bogged down in the defence of an individual, no matter how important, at the risk of embarrassment to the institution. Institutions are what Pakistan needs to strengthen, not the defence of individuals. When historians look back at this judgement in 2019, they could be tempted to cast it as a turning point in Pakistan’s history of repeated military coups and interventions and their validation by the superior judiciary and parliament. Certainly this verdict holds the promise of giving pause for thought to any future military coup maker.

Business Recorder Editorial December 18, 2019

COAS extension detailed judgement

The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) eagerly awaited detailed judgement on the issue of giving an extension to Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa has laid down that there exists a vacuum in law regarding the appointment, tenure, and extension of service of any General, including the COAS. Instead, as pointed out by the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) during the proceedings of the case, there is an ‘unwritten institutional practice’ in vogue since long whereby the tenure of a General is considered to be of three years. The SC verdict says an ‘institutional practice’ cannot be a valid substitute for what has emerged from the court’s review of Article 243 of the Constitution, Pakistan Army Act 1952, Pakistan Army Act Rules 1954, and the Army Regulations (Rules), as the legal vacuum regarding the matter. The court, exercising judicial restraint, and on the assurance of the AG that the government would bring in the necessary legislation within six months, referred the matter to parliament to provide, through appropriate legislation, ‘certainty and predictability’ to the post of COAS. Mindful of the critical role of the COAS in commanding the army, the court allowed an extension of six months to General Bajwa, pending parliament’s fulfilling the legislative task in this time period. If, however, parliament fails to bring about the legislation to allow General Bajwa the extension of three years as desired by the government, he would stand retired at the expiry of the six months and the President would then appoint a fresh COAS on the advice of the Prime Minister. The SC expressed its astonishment that the constitutional appointment of the COAS was unregulated under a written Constitution. It also pointed out that the tenure of the COAS had a chequered history. The strengthening of institutions through proper regulation would contribute to the country’s prosperity. Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa wrote an additional note pointing out that the army chief’s position was a very powerful one and unbridled power for such a position could be dangerous. The course suggested by the SC to parliament may go a long way in rectifying multiple historical wrongs, asserting the sovereign authority of parliament, and making the exercise of judicial power of the courts all-pervasive.

The detailed verdict of the SC has settled many questions, first and foremost the need for a lawful regulation of the terms and conditions, rules of appointment, tenure and extension of service of the COAS, arguably the most powerful post in our history. Given the pattern of military coups and interventions in that same history, the army chief, once in power, had no legal constraint (as has emerged in this case) to extending his tenure. That practice has been witnessed since the early 1950s. To critics who raise the question why this lacuna was never addressed earlier, the answer lies in the imbalance between the civilian and military sectors, which constrained the former from interfering in the affairs of the latter beyond a minimal point. It may be considered an inadvertent blessing that what had in the past been a simple matter and well entrenched practice, i.e. giving an extension to the COAS by a civilian government, became a judicial matter because of the inept handling by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government. However, the task ahead may not be as easy as appears at first sight. First and foremost, the government has been making noises about a possible review petition being moved once the detailed judgement has been perused. If the government does so decide, the time-frame of six months may be eaten into and whatever the end result of the review petition, leave precious little time for the legislative task. As it is, in the polarised polity of today, consensus on such a bill may not prove an easy task, especially since despite the fact the SC has only laid down that a bill is needed to be passed by a simple majority and not a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority, the PTI government has only a razor-thin majority in the National Assembly and does not enjoy a majority in the Senate. That arithmetic suggests that without a consensus across the political divide, the bill may run into heavy weather and delays. That too may impinge on the six month deadline. Necessary as the SC has found the legislation regarding the COAS, that may prove the relatively easier part.

Business Recorder Editorial December 10, 2019

Lahore Darul Aman scandal

Lahore Darul Aman (Kashana)shelter home for women in trouble has recently been rocked by its Superintendent Ms Afshan Latif’s expose of the sexual exploitation of girls and young women at the hands of the Punjab Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government’s high ups and bureaucrats. Her shocking revelation, instead of causing concern in the provincial government’s ranks, elicited a strange and twisted response. First off the starting block was Punjab Law Minister Raja Basharat, who denied the allegation even before any investigation. Now Afshan Latif has stated that she is being pressurised by Social Welfare Director General Afshan Kiran Imtiaz and the Chief Minister’s Inspection Team to withdraw her allegation. On her refusal, she is being harassed and intimidated, including the police breaking down the door of the Darul Aman, ostensibly to teach Ms Latif an ‘unforgettable lesson’, a video of the break-in having recently surfaced. Afshan Latif says this was done to erase the evidence of the shenanigans going on at the shelter home and that she fears being arrested. Not only that, the Punjab government has blocked budgetary allocations to the women’s shelter, leaving the young women in its premises at the mercy of nature. Other unconfirmed reports on social media say Darul Aman has been taken over by the Punjab authorities and Afshan Latif has in fact been incarcerated, while the blame for whatever has been happening in Darul Aman is being shifted onto the shoulders of its management. Finally, only now has Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar woken up to the issue and directed the Punjab Social Welfare secretary to conduct a full inquiry and take strict, impartial action against those found responsible.

It boggles the mind how the PTI government in general, and now its Punjab government, is functioning. Instead of lauding the courageous outing of the scandal against powerful individuals by Superintendent Afshan Latif, the Punjab government has tried to cover up the alleged culpability of its ministers and government servants by a ‘shoot the messenger’ approach. However, thanks to the impossibility of hiding or distorting the facts surrounding such matters in the age of social media, Chief Minister Usman Buzdar has been compelled to ‘take notice’ of the extremely embarrassing matter for a ruling party that never tires of touting its message of recreating the state of Medina in Pakistan. Normally and logically, what has happened after the floodgates of counter-accusations against Superintendent Afshan Latif were opened is what should have taken place in the first instance. After all no decent society can or should tolerate the sexual exploitation of young women who have sought shelter from their circumstances and troubles in the hope of leaving those behind within the theoretically secure walls of a Darul Aman. The whistle-blowing Superintendent Afshan Latif has been hard done by instead of being appreciated for her honesty, dedication and sense of responsibility towards her troubled young charges. The scandal and its handling so far have lowered the heads of every decent Pakistani who cares about his/her country in shame. Now the PTI Punjab government must ensure that not only is the inquiry into the affair thorough and objective (and not a witch-hunt against Afshan Latif), the perpetrators of sexual exploitation of these helpless young women burdened already with a troubled past and those facilitating such hanky-panky are brought to justice and appropriate punishments imposed. If the Punjab government fails in this duty, it is likely to find itself even more embarrassed. The prospect of being put on the mat for its dereliction of duty towards young women in shelter homes, being oblivious to their sexual exploitation, and initially mishandling the matter in a manner that casts suspicion on its intentions amongst the public and perhaps the courts should persuade Chief Minister Usman Buzdar and his government that it is in its own interests to see that justice is done in transparent and credible fashion.

Business Recorder Editorial December 7, 2019

In-house change

Former chief minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, who is in London these days looking after ill brother Nawaz Sharif, held a press conference on December 4, 2019 in which he backed the idea of an ‘in-house change’ to remove Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan. He hit out bitterly at the alleged ‘National Accountability Bureau (NAB)-Niazi nexus’ in the wake of his assets being frozen back home. He said the sooner the country gets rid of PM Imran Khan, the better it would be for the country. He argued an in-house change was a perfectly constitutional, legal way forward. Imran Khan Niazi, he continued, had become a burden. He tried to dispel the impression that this was purely about himself and his present troubles, rather he posited the notion that he was talking only from the point of view of what was in the national interest. Shahbaz Sharif referred to the recent proceedings in the Supreme Court where NAB counsel Naeem Bokhari wilted before the probing questions of the court and decided the wiser course was to withdraw his appeal against the bail granted to Shahbaz Sharif in two cases, the Ashiyana housing scheme and the Ramzan Sugar Mills cases. Incidentally, even former principal secretary to the prime minister Fawad Hassan Fawad got bail in the housing scheme case, but he remains incarcerated in other cases. Shahbaz Sharif described the accountability process against him as a political witch-hunt orchestrated through NAB by a vitriol-spewing, egotistical, divisive, angry, selfish Imran Khan who put his own interests before those of the country. He pointed out that NAB summoned him in the Saaf Paani case and arrested him in the Ashiyana case. After five and a half months in NAB’s custody, he was sent on judicial remand and finally granted bail in February 2019. He lambasted the performance of Imran Khan’s government, which had delivered little else than high inflation, an increase in unemployment, and reduced the economy to its “present poor state”. He attempted to put the PM on the mat by asking where are those five million houses he promised to build. Shahbaz accused front benchers of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government with laundering money to acquire mansions in Dubai, Europe and the UK. Big personalities in the PTI, he charged, had their employees as shareholders in their companies.

What was surprising about Shahbaz Sharif’s support to the idea of an in-house change is that it contrasted sharply with the decisions of last week’s opposition multi-party conference in which the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N’s) secretary general Ahsan Iqbal demanded new, independent, fair and transparent elections as the ‘only solution’ and warned that using any other option would result in leading the country towards destruction. The last may be hyperbole, but Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari was also present with Ahsan Iqbal and said on the occasion that all the opposition parties were agreed that they did not accept the present ‘selected prime minister’ and would not accept any ‘selected’ prime minister in future either, be it through elections or an in-house change. In this regard the PPP has changed its mind and its stance, since in mid-September 2019 it decided to bring an in-house change by putting pressure on the government’s allies and facilitators and even set a three-month deadline for the purpose. The fact is that the government enjoys a thin majority in the National Assembly and an in-house change would require as a first step the introduction by the opposition of a no-confidence motion against the PM and get it passed by a simple majority. But given the debacle of the no-confidence motion against the Speaker Senate, despite the opposition having a majority in the upper house, perhaps the PPP has had second thoughts on this course of action. However, what is intriguing about Shahbaz Sharif’s resurrection of the idea of an in-house change is that it seems to be based on the perception that the removal of Imran Khan and his replacement even by another PTI heavyweight would be the first breach in the walls of the fortress constructed around him by his alleged facilitators and would lead to a rapid disintegration of the government’s hold on power. Implicit in this scenario is the belief (or hope?) that Imran Khan’s backers may be having second thoughts about their choice. So far, however, there is little sign of this wishful thinking coming true.

Business Recorder Editorial December 5, 2019

Criticality of bureaucracy

Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government have been slow to learn what for them has proved the painful lesson that running the government, let alone good governance, is simply impossible without the cooperation and willingness of the bureaucracy. This tilt owes its origins to the narrative of the PTI before it came to power last year (and continuing until now even after) that the bureaucracy was beholden to, if not an active supporter of, the previous government of the Sharifs. This attitude was echoed in the approach of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in treating leading bureaucrats who had served under the Sharif brothers at the Centre and in Punjab as ‘collaborators’ in the alleged corruption of the previous government. NAB set about arresting and publicly humiliating civil servants ‘tainted’ by association with the previous government in a manner that produced fear and uncertainty in the ranks of civil servants. The result was an almost complete paralysis of the government machinery, since bureaucrats could not be certain who would be next on NAB’s radar. Even decisions taken in good faith and that may have turned out to be erroneous began to be treated as felonies and misdemeanours, a development that persuaded the bureaucracy to retreat behind a ‘safety first’ attitude that froze critical decision making and implementation. The real loser as a result was the incumbent PTI government. To add to the malaise, civil servants were at a loss in the face of the dizzying speed with which the government changed or reversed its own decisions. Recently, the federal secretaries met and prepared a draft of amendments to NAB laws to be presented to the PM for approval. Amongst other recommendations, the draft suggested that responsibility be shifted to the federal government to apply NAB’s laws in cases involving more than Rs 500 million rather than the President or NAB chairman, as has been the practice so far. Further, that NAB’s authority to summon government officials be removed, NAB’s remand period be restricted to 14 days instead of the 90 days at present, provincial courts be given a shorter timeframe to determine a case, and a scrutiny committee comprising a secretary of the cabinet division, establishment division, chairman FBR, chairman SECP, a law official and secretary of the concerned division replace the present one headed by the chairman NAB. No member of the civil service be arrested without the approval of this reconstituted scrutiny committee, which should ensure that a full investigation is initiated. In short, the federal secretaries argued for taking action against bureaucrats on the basis of evidence rather than perception.

It is late but welcome that the government has realised what is in its own best interests. There are still lingering reservations though, especially if the graceless manner in which a DG FIA has been forced to resign in protest at being transferred on the eve of his retirement. However, if a fresh breeze is indeed starting to blow away the past preconceived notions and biases of the incumbents, and hopefully the worst of its past attitudes and practices, this is indeed all to the good. The massive reshuffle going on in the bureaucracy of late is a sign of the change, since so-called blue-eyed boys of the previous government are being called upon once more to take charge of the areas of their expertise. In the words of PM Imran Khan himself while speaking to a meeting with recently promoted officers, these promotions have been done purely on merit and the government expects the bureaucracy to work hard in the country’s interest. Bias and prejudice, laced with the acidic practices of NAB, have done no favour to this government or its governance. Bitter as it is, the lesson has to be learnt that civil servants are not necessarily politically aligned, even if appearances suggest so. They serve whichever government is in power. For a government that is in power for the first time, that lesson it seems is by now being well learnt.

Business Recorder Column December 3, 2019

Students’ mobilisation

Rashed Rahman

An unprecedented in recent times countrywide mobilisation of students across the state-run and private elite institutions of higher education was witnessed on November 29, 2019. Some 60 cities and towns all over the country became the site of protest rallies by students demanding the revival of student unions, lowering fees to provide better access to education for poor students, enhancing the education budget to six percent of GDP, etc. Prime Minister Imran Khan, Federal Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry and some other worthies of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government made sympathetic noises, particularly on the demand for revival of student unions, with Imran Khan going so far as to hint at their revival, but with a comprehensive code of conduct to prevent campuses turning into ‘battlefields’ as had happened in the past.

Ironically, while the top leadership was displaying these stances, the authorities were instituting sedition cases against the organisers and participants of this historic Students March, with one former student of Punjab University whisked away from the university’s campus and the arrest of some 300 others on the cards. What was the fault of the organisers and participants in this wholly peaceful demonstration asking for what are the fundamental rights of any section of society, particularly students? Only that they were guilty of peacefully raising their collective voice for demands that do not violate any laws. It is claimed by the authorities that these cases have been instituted because speeches were made at the rallies that fell within the purview of being anti-state and anti-institutions. ‘Anti-state’ is a stretch, a catch-all appellation for whatever is critical or dissident in our controlled democracy. ‘Anti-institutions’ is the euphemism currently in use for anything critical of the military establishment. The fault lies not with the critics but with the military establishment’s constant intervention and interference in politics. That terrain then inevitably attracts criticism.

The historical context bears keeping in mind. Students in developing countries such as Pakistan (previously dubbed the Third World) have been in the forefront of struggles against authoritarianism, military coups and martial laws, and now the not-so-covert control of national politics and narrative by the military establishment. Notable student mobilisations in the past include the 1961 assassination by the CIA of Congo’s independence leader Patrice Lumumba, the agitation against Ayub Khan’s University Ordinance in 1964, and the 1968-69 countrywide seven-month long agitation (in which the students were incrementally joined by the working class and political opposition parties).

The 1968-69 struggle managed to make the continuation of the Ayub Khan regime impossible but the movement had no answer to the imposition of martial law and the takeover by Army Commander-in-Chief General Yahya Khan. There followed a brutal repression against students, the working class, peasantry, journalists and political leaders and workers by the Yahya regime. In the obtaining circumstances of a countrywide (East and West Pakistan at the time) agitation however, the regime was forced to announce general elections to be held in 1970. These were arguably the freest and fairest elections in Pakistan’s chequered history. However, when the surprising result gave Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League the majority, the Yahya regime drowned this democratic expression of the people in blood, losing half the country in the process because of Indian intervention in support of the rebellion in East Pakistan that broke out against the genocide of their people. 

Broken Pakistan was now sought to be put together again by the military handing over power to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) as the party with the largest number of seats in the remaining Pakistan. No fresh elections were held to reflect the new reality of the country having shrunk to just what was West Pakistan. Bhutto’s mandate garnered in a general election in a larger Pakistan as the second largest party was used as justification for handing over the reins of power to him.

Bhutto’s political fortunes owed a great deal to the student-led 1968-69 agitation. The overwhelming character of that movement was left-wing. The promises Bhutto had made before attaining power now troubled his government, particularly the ‘threat’ from radical left wing students and workers. Hence the latter were ‘put in their place’ by repression beginning in Karachi in 1972, while the former were not so subtly defanged by supporting the Jamaat-i-Islami’s student goons (Jamiat). By 1974, the Jamiat had gained almost exclusive control of Punjab University and many other colleges and institutions of higher learning, first and foremost in Punjab, but extending throughout the country.

Resistance continued to the fascist violence through which the Jamiat silenced all dissent on campus, and this resistance threatened General Ziaul Haq’s military regime. After the 1983 Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) was crushed, Zia followed up by banning student unions in 1984 to pre-empt any student agitation. These unions were restored by Benazir Bhutto’s first government in 1988, but did not survive the demise of her government two years later. In 1993, the ban on student unions was challenged legally and ended up with the Supreme Court upholding the ban but qualifiedly in principle advocating the revival of student unions, provided a proper mechanism was devised to prevent the recurrence of violence on the campuses.

Of course all these events and developments never pinned the blame on organisations like the Jamiat as the authors of importing violence into institutions of higher learning. If there was countervailing violence from their victims, it was defensive in nature (Imran Khan please note). Successive governments ever since the ban have been pussyfooting around the issue without taking a clear cut position and implementing a revival of the student unions.

Now, 50 years after the 1968-69 student-led uprising and 35 years after the ban on student unions, the young have taken matters into their own hands. The leading role of young women students in this upsurge can only be appreciated and lauded. After the Aurat March earlier this year, this is the second demonstration of the undeniable truth that without women’s participation and coming forward to lead, no progressive change is possible.

Having said that, the real test for the students now looms. How they come together to combat the repression being loosed against them by this hypocritical government may well determine the direction and pace of the inevitable change on the agenda against an unjust, cruel, repressive and exploitative system that offers everything to the power and wealth elite and has nothing for the young, women, working class, peasantry, oppressed nationalities, religious minorities and the ordinary citizen finding it difficult now to make two ends meet or afford three meals a day. If this government had any sense (a commodity they have been at pains to prove is absent), they would embrace this upsurge by the students and youth, not seek to strangle it. But in that anomaly lie new battles ahead.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial December 2, 2019

High treason case

The treason case filed against former COAS and President General Pervez Musharraf (retd) for imposing a state of emergency in 2007 and suspending the Constitution has dragged on without conclusion since 2013. In 2016, Musharraf was allowed to proceed abroad by the superior courts and the interior ministry on health grounds. He has since never returned to face the court proceedings. The special court trying the case perhaps relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling that the defendant loses his right to a legal defence if he continues to absent himself from the proceedings in announcing on November 19, 2019 that it would deliver the final verdict in the case on November 28, 2019. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) was approached by the complainant, the interior ministry, and Musharraf approached the Lahore High Court through their respective counsel to delay the verdict. The former argued the complaint against Musharraf had not been filed through an authorised person nor had the special court been formed properly, while the prosecution team was removed on October 24, 2019 after loopholes in the case were discovered, yet they submitted written arguments before the court without the ministry’s authorisation. Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti informed the IHC that the government was about to notify new prosecutors but the special court concluded the proceedings without even engaging with the new legal team. The counsel for Musharraf on the other hand relied on arguments that the accused had not been afforded a proper opportunity to present a defence and that the special court had not even entertained his application seeking acquittal.

The IHC set aside the special court order regarding announcing the final verdict on November 28, 2019 just one day before. It directed the government to notify a fresh prosecution team by December 5, 2019. During the proceedings, it was conceded by Law Secretary Khashishur Rehman that the special court was indeed properly constituted with the approval of the federal cabinet. The IHC further asked the special court to fix a date for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing the prosecution and defence while concluding the proceedings expeditiously. The special court has responded to the IHC’s decision by saying it is not bound by it, only by the Supreme Court’s directives. It has announced it will hear the case on a daily basis after December 5, 2019. It remains to be seen how this statement of ‘autonomy’ by the special court will play out.

Military dictators in our history have got away with violating the Constitution without any adverse consequences. Even General Yahya Khan was only declared a usurper by the superior judiciary long after he had vacated power. On the other hand, the superior judiciary’s track record in the past of validating military coups and martial laws left jurisprudence in Pakistan in a shambles. Musharraf’s case therefore assumes an extraordinary importance for being the first instance of a military ruler, despite having his 1999 coup endorsed by the Supreme Court and action thereunder indemnified by Parliament, to have been hauled up on treason charges for the emergency imposition in 2007. However, Musharraf has managed to avoid appearance in the special court on the grounds of ill health even before he left the country in 2016, and certainly since then. It is inconceivable that ordinary mortals and citizens could have received the kid glove treatment Musharraf has. This contrast simply reflects the powerful position enjoyed by COASs in our system, even after they have retired. The special court has gone out of its way to try and accommodate Musharraf’s appearance or even deposition by electronic and written means. This has not been taken advantage of by the accused over the years on one pretext or the other. It appears the special court finally lost patience with these dilatory tactics and is now determined not to brook any further delay. It will, however, have to take account at the very least of the IHC’s directives regarding the constitution of a fresh prosecution team and allowing at least Musharraf's counsel to argue his case. The outcome, however, remains as clouded as ever.