The arguments presented by government, establishment and their supporters in the media against the courts directly challenge the basic constitutional principle of judicial review of executive orders and legislative processes by the superior courts, argues Umer Farooq.
Federal Minister Fawad Chaudhry hails from Jhelum—a city in Northern Punjab, which is known to be the recruiting ground of Pakistani land forces. Every other family in the city has its members serving in senior positions in the army. We have two army chiefs belonging to the city or its environs in the recent past. So we can easily conclude that Fawad Chaudhry as a representative of people of Jhelum and as a member of a very influential family of Jhelum city is well versed in the martial culture of Pakistan.
We can also say that he has multiple sources to predict what is going on inside Pakistani power quarters at any given point of time.
What made me say all these things about Fawad Chaudhry? These facts passed like a flash from my mind after reading a series of tweets Fawad Chaudhry issued today on the issues related to the court awarding death sentence to a former army chief, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.
Federal Minister for Information and Technology Fawad Chaudhry took to Twitter to say that the recent verdict against Musharraf and the army will create divisions, thus putting the country in danger. In tweets, the minister said that ‘we will not be able to save the country if there is anarchy and if the army is divided.’
Two dangerous scenarios painted in a single and brief tweet. There could be anarchy and army could be divided—both of which are dreadful scenarios. But the question is what type of anarchy the minister is referring to and secondly there are no sign so far that there could be division in the army. This has come to the common knowledge only through the tweet of the federal minister. Nothing could be more dreadful than the divisions in the army—it would simply mean civil war or anarchy in the society as the minister referred to this scenario in his tweets.
But how can a court verdict in a high treason case lead to division in the army and anarchy in the society? Simply beyond comprehension—is there a difference of opinion that exists within the army over the court verdict? So far the only reaction of the army to the court verdict has come from DG ISPR Major General Asif Ghafoor who said that the verdict was received with “pain and anguish” within the army. He rejected the court verdict as against the principles of justice. Later, the army chief told his military audience that they would not allow stability to go away at any cost. The army chief didn’t specify what is the reaction inside the army towards the court verdict, but he too cryptically said that the things are moving in direction where there could be instability.
The feeling of “pain and anguish” in themselves, if they are allowed to persist for a long time, is not good for the country either.
In his latest press conference, the DG ISPR even tried to link the court verdict with the foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistani society. It is difficult to buy the theory that some foreign “James Bond” has tried to penetrate into our judiciary to get a verdict against a former army chief, in order to create anarchy, instability and division inside the army. If one considers the rumours in Islamabad since Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman’s “Azadi March” that there are differences within the top brass over the three years extension granted to the incumbent chief, the situation becomes even more complex and fluid.
The minister further said that the judiciary has been meddling with the army for a long time. First, the judiciary involved the security agencies with the Tehreek-e-Labaik protests and then interfered in the extension of the COAS Bajwa’s appointment. This series of tweets comes a day after the detailed verdict on the Musharraf treason case was released.
The arguments presented by the military and its friends in the political class against the courts directly challenge the basic constitutional principle of judicial review of executive orders and legislative processes by the superior courts. Many political observers are of the view that just by rejecting a valid and legitimate court order, the powerful quarters are creating an environment of instability. In fact, rejection of the court order and vilification of judges will only harm the state even if gets short term respite for the most powerful institution.
Federal Minister Fawad Chaudhry hails from Jhelum—a city in Northern Punjab, which is known to be the recruiting ground of Pakistani land forces. Every other family in the city has its members serving in senior positions in the army. We have two army chiefs belonging to the city or its environs in the recent past. So we can easily conclude that Fawad Chaudhry as a representative of people of Jhelum and as a member of a very influential family of Jhelum city is well versed in the martial culture of Pakistan.
We can also say that he has multiple sources to predict what is going on inside Pakistani power quarters at any given point of time.
What made me say all these things about Fawad Chaudhry? These facts passed like a flash from my mind after reading a series of tweets Fawad Chaudhry issued today on the issues related to the court awarding death sentence to a former army chief, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.
Federal Minister for Information and Technology Fawad Chaudhry took to Twitter to say that the recent verdict against Musharraf and the army will create divisions, thus putting the country in danger. In tweets, the minister said that ‘we will not be able to save the country if there is anarchy and if the army is divided.’
Two dangerous scenarios painted in a single and brief tweet. There could be anarchy and army could be divided—both of which are dreadful scenarios. But the question is what type of anarchy the minister is referring to and secondly there are no sign so far that there could be division in the army. This has come to the common knowledge only through the tweet of the federal minister. Nothing could be more dreadful than the divisions in the army—it would simply mean civil war or anarchy in the society as the minister referred to this scenario in his tweets.
But how can a court verdict in a high treason case lead to division in the army and anarchy in the society? Simply beyond comprehension—is there a difference of opinion that exists within the army over the court verdict? So far the only reaction of the army to the court verdict has come from DG ISPR Major General Asif Ghafoor who said that the verdict was received with “pain and anguish” within the army. He rejected the court verdict as against the principles of justice. Later, the army chief told his military audience that they would not allow stability to go away at any cost. The army chief didn’t specify what is the reaction inside the army towards the court verdict, but he too cryptically said that the things are moving in direction where there could be instability.
The feeling of “pain and anguish” in themselves, if they are allowed to persist for a long time, is not good for the country either.
In his latest press conference, the DG ISPR even tried to link the court verdict with the foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistani society. It is difficult to buy the theory that some foreign “James Bond” has tried to penetrate into our judiciary to get a verdict against a former army chief, in order to create anarchy, instability and division inside the army. If one considers the rumours in Islamabad since Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman’s “Azadi March” that there are differences within the top brass over the three years extension granted to the incumbent chief, the situation becomes even more complex and fluid.
The minister further said that the judiciary has been meddling with the army for a long time. First, the judiciary involved the security agencies with the Tehreek-e-Labaik protests and then interfered in the extension of the COAS Bajwa’s appointment. This series of tweets comes a day after the detailed verdict on the Musharraf treason case was released.
The arguments presented by the military and its friends in the political class against the courts directly challenge the basic constitutional principle of judicial review of executive orders and legislative processes by the superior courts. Many political observers are of the view that just by rejecting a valid and legitimate court order, the powerful quarters are creating an environment of instability. In fact, rejection of the court order and vilification of judges will only harm the state even if gets short term respite for the most powerful institution.