Musharraf’s Trial
By Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd.)
Werstridge-1, Rawalpindi
The hottest topic of the day in the media these days is Musharraf’s trial. Pick up any daily newspaper or tune in to any TV channel one is bound to find the mention of the trial one way or the other.
The latest in this regard is the FIR filed against the former general for illegally detaining 60 judges along with their families in their houses for more than five months. One wonders why none of the lordships – and who could know law better than them – lodged any habeas corpus petition against their unlawful detention!
Legalities apart, there is a strong perception amongst the masses – both literate as well as illiterate – that the trial owes its hype to either (i) vendetta and the politics of revenge, (ii) diverting the attention of the masses from the more pressing issues of poverty, inflation, unemployment, load-shedding etc. and (iii) a genuine desire for punishing a usurper that could act as a deterrent for any future Bonaparte. If the trial is contrived for the first two reasons, then it is malafides and cannot be appreciated. However, if it the third alternative and the purpose is to strengthen democracy and other democratic institutions, then it has a justification. Having said that, I cannot help thinking that will such a trial, if at all it takes place, really thwart any future military intervention for all times to come? I have serious doubts about that.
Wasn’t Article 6 a part of the Constitution at the time of Zia’s takeover? As a matter of fact, Article 6 was best commented upon by the then MNA Miangul Aurangzeb of Swat to ZAB: its inclusion in the Constitution will not stop a military dictator from seizing power but could delay his departure after taking over. Has section 302 of the PPC pronouncing death sentence for murderer stopped murders from being committed? I think the only way to stop military intervention is to ensure good governance by the politicians.
As long as the masses are satisfied and contended no dictator can dare to take over. The mere fact that on every military takeover sweets were distributed not only by the common man in the street but also by some of the politicians and political parties demonstrated that something was amiss among the politicians and the ruling party. Why was the government of BB dismissed by her own party man, Laghari? Why was the Nawaz Sharif government dismissed twice by the late Ghulam Ishaq Khan (GIK)? Both Laghari and GIK were not military dictators. If the Generals, as most wrongly propagated by interested quarters, were keen to take over, why did Mirza Aslam Beg not take over on 17 th August 1988 when there was nothing – literally nothing - to stop him from doing so? Why did Abdul Waheed Kakar not take over power himself after giving marching orders to both GIK and Mohammad Nawaz Sharif? Why did General Jahangir Karamat leave office of the COAS so willingly, if he didn’t want to? Could he not take over the country instead of leaving quietly? Why did Asif Nawaz Janjua not takeover in spite of his having not much love lost for the then PM? So, my dear Sirs, as long as the politicians deliver and behave no military dictator would think of taking over. But, if and when things go awry, masses are wronged, internal security is endangered and/or God forbid existence of Pakistan is threatened, the armed forces will move to safeguard the country against the internal threat.
