Parliament protected martial laws: Ramday

ISLAMABAD – The incumbent legislators have destroyed the parliamentary image through different clauses, including 175-A, 63-A and 239, of the 18th Constitutional Amendment which are negating the basic structure of the Constitution, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada argued Tuesday before a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court.

The 17-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is hearing identical petitions against certain clauses of the 18th Amendment. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday said that the courts accorded temporary validation to martial laws, but others (Parliament) provided every time permanent protection to it and only the institution of judiciary was being singled out.
Pirzada said in his arguments that it was a unique characteristic of the 1973 Constitution that it

was passed unanimously and no dictator had courage to abrogate it though it was put in abeyance by General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. He said except a few amendments,


the other changes in the Constitution were quite appreciative.
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada said that the 18th Amendment had destroyed the parliamentary image of
the 1973 Constitution and its Article 239 barred the jurisdiction of the court to examine the laws passed by the Parliament. He said that the Supreme Court had the powers to decide disputes between the Federating Units and the Federation.

Justice Saqib Nisar asked Pirzada what was the correlation between the convention and the expressed will of the people. He stated if the constitution was a living document, then the future

generation could make changes in it.
Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk asked, “Can the court strike down an expressed will if it is against the convention?”

Pirzada replied where was the will of the people when General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency in the country as the then National and Punjab Assemblies had supported him.

The Chief Justice said that the Parliament did not validate the action but it only passed the resolution.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja citing a politician said that the parliamentarians considered themselves as servants of the people and the masses were the real masters of their government.

Pervez Musharraf planning to return to politics: Aide

ISLAMABAD: Former president Pervez Musharraf is planning to return to Pakistan from self-exile and head the newly formed All Pakistan Muslim League, his top aide said today.

"We have organised co-ordinating councils, we call them, which are at present involved in recruiting people or getting people to join All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) which is the political party, which Inshah Allah, be led by president Musharraf and will bring the sort of progress and prosperity to Pakistan that it had in time when Musharraf was around," retired general Rashid Qureshi said.

Qureshi, who was the military and presidential spokesperson for Musharraf, has been in the forefront in setting up the APML.

"You see, earlier on, president Musharraf was not actively involved in politics. Yes, he was at one time, the chief executive of the country and later on the President of Pakistan. But the political side was being handled by the PML(Q) and all political decisions were taken by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Parvez Ilahi, obviously in consultation with the president," he said.

"Some of these political decisions turned out to be not very popular with the people of Pakistan," he added.

Musharraf has lived outside Pakistan since mid-April last year. He left Pakistan after a slew of cases were filed against him in courts across the country. Musharraf is mostly based in London after leaving the country.

The former president was forced to step down as army chief in November 2008 and was earlier barred from active politics in the country for two years.

A South Asian legacy?

Pakistan has experienced so many dramatic events in the last three years that it is no longer the country the world knew in 2007. Back then, a supremely confident Pervez Musharraf moved between international power centres with ease and basked in the fame of his memoirs, In the line of Fire. He had a plan for another general election under his guidance and the question of taking off his military uniform was more a talking point in meetings with foreign visitors than a clear prospect. The Americans had grown used to dealing with one man in Pakistan who controlled the military as well as the political levers of power. While the exiled political leaders manoeuvred for their return, the west favoured a patch-up between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Reconciliation with Nawaz Sharif, who had been toppled by the military, did not seem feasible for either party. And then, all hell broke loose.

What followed the fateful meeting between President Musharraf and Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was tumultuous even from the known standards of Pakistan's turbulent history. It was reality more powerful than fiction and nobody, including the main players, knew where they were heading. It was as if a powerful hand had clicked "fast forward" for Pakistan for the rest of 2007. But as the year wound to an and, the screen suddenly went black when Benazir Bhutto rose perilously from the hood of her armoured car to touch base with the people and was mercilessly assassinated. Her abrupt departure set into motion a new series of happenings culminating in the rise to power of Asif Ali Zardari and the ouster of Pervez Musharraf.

How many of us have given a second thought to all that the peaceful departure of a military strongman from power means for the future of this nation? It is hard to come across a serious analysis of the implications of Musharraf's reluctant handover of the post of army chief while continuing to serve as president. Nor do we hear much about the impact of Musharraf's ambiguous status of an exile for the future of civil-military power play in the years ahead. Will it encourage or deter a potential Bonaparte now that a precedent of dispatching a military ruler has been set?

Admittedly, we have pressing domestic and foreign issues to address and cannot go into soul-searching right now. Foreign diplomats posted in Islamabad aver that with so much happening in and around Pakistan, they never have a dull moment. Afghanistan, Kashmir and parts of FATA are likely to remain theatres of military operations for years to come. With domestic political, economic and judicial crises aplenty, the international community is not betting on the return of stability to Pakistan in the foreseeable future. But our partners do realise that whatever happens to Pakistan in the months and years ahead is not merely going to profoundly affect this country but is full of far-reaching implications for South and Central Asia.

It is one thing to speculate on the map of Pakistan in a few years' time while sitting in well-resourced American think tanks, but more challenging to forecast the ripple effects of destabilisation of Pakistan on countries like India, Iran and Afghanistan. When the Indian leaders speak of their good wishes for a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan, these should not be considered as empty words. India, more than any other country, will receive the fallout of trouble in Pakistan. The US and the EU want to develop ties with India for their own interests and pay lip-service to India's claim for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. They quietly caution India that the settlement of disputes with Pakistan would only help strengthen its candidacy for a seat at the world's premier forum. But the underlying concern is that their investments in India would not be secure without security and stability on the Subcontinent. Therefore, the imperatives of dialogue process between Pakistan and India have to be considered beyond the bilateral context and assessed in a regional and global setting.

India's willingness to resume the dialogue with Pakistan signals New Delhi having reached the conclusion that the policy of no-talks had run its course. Or that India could maintain pressure on Pakistan within the framework of the dialogue process or through the intermediary of big powers for cracking down on anti-India militants. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh might have leaned on the opponents of talks with Pakistan in his well-known persuasive manner. Pakistan had adopted a reasonable but firm position of being interested in a result-oriented dialogue and not mere talks. Why would Mr Singh push for jumpstarting the dialogue when he could easily take shelter behind the pretext of Pakistan-based groups still remaining active? The answer probably lies in the life-long struggle of a man who had to study by candlelight, as his native village of Gah in Chakwal District had no electricity. He would later excel in studies at Chandigarh, Cambridge and Oxford. The boy from Gah rose through the ranks of international civil service and India's academia and financial institutions to become the country's reformist finance minister.

The same Manmohan Singh has emerged as India's great benefactor since Jawaharlal Nehru. If Nehru consolidated India's democracy, Singh transformed an outdated Licence Raj into a liberal economy and turned India into an economic player of world standards. He could never get elected to the Lok Sabha and accepted to be in the upper house against the reserved quota of Assam. But that did not stop him from becoming the first prime minister since Nehru to get re-elected after completing a full five-year term.

Manmohan Singh's legacy for India is already firmly in place. What more can he wish at the age of 78 with four years to go before the next general election? Can this time be used to extend his legacy beyond India's borders into something more durable on the scale of the Subcontinent? One thing is almost certain. There might not be another prime minister of India born on this side of the border. It is difficult to imagine two leaders so markedly different in their outlook as Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf, but they shared the belief that having taken birth on the other side of the divide, they could work together with greater conviction to reduce acrimony between the two countries. Manmohan ji is not our last hope for Indo-Pak rapprochement but as good as there will ever be.