A
Martyr in the Making
By Col. Riaz Jafri
(Retd.)
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Rauf
Klasra in The news, June 7, 2007 says, “Renowned
scholar Dr Ayesha Siddiqa secretly reached London
on Wednesday after she ‘received a message
that a charge sheet is being prepared to put her
on trial’ for writing a book against the
Pakistani military establishment.”
The manipulative media is trying once again to
put another feather in its cap by making yet another
martyr in Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa. If she has just
advanced her date of departure for London by a
week or so, it does not necessarily mean that
she has fled the country due to the threats from
the authorities conveyed to her by her 'close
family friends'! Does she not intend to return
to Pakistan for good, or will the 'threats' whither
away soon? And, if someone is bent upon punishing
her, aren't there hundred and one other means
and methods of doing so?
Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa is an intelligent being and
a learned citizen of Pakistan. She must have lived
here for most of her life and known, considered
seriously, and pondered over what could or could
not happen to her, her family and others for writing
the book. And, yet she chose to write it. Does
it not show her confidence in the powers that
be that no harm would come to her? But, here is
the media, giving it the dirty twist. Please STOP
playing upon it any further here and now.
For God's sake stop denigrating Pakistan all over
the world. Has any American, European or Brit
come to Pakistan to malign his/her country? It
is truly lamentable that we Pakistanis bend ourselves
backwards in telling the world about us and our
country that should not be even mentioned in hushed
whisper.
*****
TV Anchors
Some of the TV anchors in an effort to surpass
their competitors not only go out of the way to
side with the opposition and judiciary but in
the process also inadvertently (or may be by design)
malign the armed forces. Some of them are noticeably
obvious with their body language and facial expressions
in that the moment a panellist says something
in favour of the opposition or the legal fraternity
their faces brighten up and the moment someone
supports the government or blames the opposition
for politicising the judiciary despair is writ
large on their faces. My dear TV anchors, your
viewers expect you to be neutral and please try
to be so even if you find it trying. Since the
army is castigated in its absence on your talk
shows and you seem to enjoy it, at least that’s
what I gather from your gestures, please allow
an ex-army man to come to its rescue and suggest
you a question to pose to your legal panellists,
both lawyers and the ex-judges:
Can you, Sir, swear by your honour, (mind
it Allah SWT is all knowing and seeing and hearing
you right now) that you have never taken bribe
or bribed someone during your legal practice or
holding a judicial office?
Though the Transparency International places judiciary
third in order of corruption after police and
power in Pakistan, yet I know they will manage
to wriggle out of it, one way or the other, for
they are the past masters of this art. Therefore,
now Mr. Anchor it will depend upon your skills
and acumen to extract an answer out of them.
Needless to say that you will fail. But before
that happens, let me ask, do you or your producers
have the guts to include such a question in your
talk show? Can the warriors of the pen rise to
the occasion?
*****
A Matter of English
I do earnestly hope that by discussing the English
language and not the substance or matter of the
affidavit filed by the CJP before the SC, I am
not transgressing the limits of discussing a matter
subjudice before the court. It is only the English
language that I am concerned about and not any
of the subject matter of the affidavit.
In para 2-C of the text of the affidavit, which
is freely available on the Internet, it reads:
On this the Respondent said that there
are a few more complaints against the deponent
as well.
This sentence is in ‘indirect narration’
form. And, in this form if the speaker uses the
past tense (the Respondent said) then the past
tense has also to be used in the subsequent clause.
I think, it should have, therefore, been “----
there were a few more complaints ----" instead
of “--- there are a few more complaints
-----" in the sentence.
I am quite alive to fact that very able and learned
lawyers and counsellors of the CJP would have
vetted the affidavit from all angles before submitting
it to the SC, and that they cannot afford to have
any lapses of the language in an affidavit filed
by and on behalf of the most august the Honourable
Chief Justice of Pakistan. I am only a matriculate
(Punjab University 1947) and have obvious limitations
of the English language and its grammar. I would,
therefore, highly appreciate if some of your more
learned readers could correct me on this account.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
