Adil Najam
The way that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was removed was bad enough. But what has happened since then is even more disturbing.
The Chief Justice removed. Media being muzzled. Lawyers protesting beaten up.
One can debate whether Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry should have been removed or not, or even whether the way he was removed was appropriate or not. But there is no question that the way the government is dealing with this issue is shameful, distressing, and dangerous.
The shamefulness is obvious in these pictures; just as it was when a young man’s shalwar was taken off as he protested ‘disappearances’ some months ago. It is distressing because it demonstrates the sanctity of our most important institutions – the judiciary and the media – is under stress. It is dangerous because if one keeps slipping down this road then it is not merely the future of this government but that of the entire country that will be at stake.
Whether the lawyers here instigated the violence or not, I do not know. They very possibly did, and that is itself disturbing. But that is not the point. The question is how a society and a state deals with dissent and protest. Once again, the answer is: “Shamefully.”
I do not know who is advising the government on all of this. I just pray that someone is. I hope there is someone who stands up and says:
“Don’t do this.
Please don’t do this.
This is not good for you.
This is not good for the country.
This cannot be good for anyone.
Please – for God’s sake – STOP!”
I wish I had something more profound to say right now. But as I stare at these pictures and this video clip, I hold my head in shame; I am distressed; and I ponder on the dangers before us.
All I can think of right now is: “Allah khair karey!”
(Also see a BBC video report here. All pictures above from BBC website; video from GEO News).ÂÂÂ
Daktar:
In yesterday’s Aaj TV talk show with Talat Hussain, the information minister said that the decision to hold an open trial is not in the hands of the government. He claimed that it’s totally up to the supreme judicial council. Meaning: no open trial.
Also, note that while the lawyers are protesting, the judges are not. I feel tempted to use words that would violate ATP’s posting policies.
By the way, in yesterday’s Kamran Khan show, he and Ansar Abbassi spent some time talking about the history of good ties between the military and judiciary. They also talked about the fact that when Musharraf created NAB, two institutions, the military and judiciary were exempted. That show is certainly worth putting up on google if someone has a recording.
Owais: What are your thoughts about the top picture, a lawyer in bllod tinged white shirt??I do agree that voilence is not the answer to voilence but I guess as a nation, we are still not at a point in evolution where maybe we could understand that!!!
I don’t know if I’ll ever use services of a lawyer whom I saw throwing stones on national media :)
Tomorrow morning the Chief Justice is supposed to appear before the SJC. He is insisiting that he wants representation and wants an open trial. At least the first request is totally reasonable. I hope the government does not again make an already bad situation even worse by refusing. If it does, then anything can happen.
Owais: While hooliganism and mob-mentality is rather pervasive in our culture, I don’t see how the lawyers who were being pelted with laathi charge in this case could have possibly responded. Their other option would have been to disperse and the news headline would be something like:”Lawyes gather to protest but were stopped by police and thus they dispersed after a little naara baaze.” That would have barely qualified for a page 3 column in the newspaper.