Opinion - News Analysis   

Temperatures rising in Pakistan

Nirupama Subramanian

The abrupt removal of Pakistan's Chief Justice has seen President Pervez Musharraf's authority challenged widely across the country — for the first time in his seven-year rule.

— PHOTO: AFP

Pakistani lawyers demonstrate in Peshawar on Thursday against the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary.

THE AGITATION over the abrupt removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is poised to enter its third week and yet shows no sign of abating. Lawyers are still spearheading the protests, while Opposition political parties have thus far contributed lung power and some street power.

This is the first time in his seven-year rule that President Pervez Musharraf has found his authority challenged so widely across the country. The agitation's dogged refusal to die owes perhaps just to one reason: Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary's decision not to resign and to stay on and challenge his ouster. This is the first time that a person in high office has dared to confront the regime.

Before him, nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and Prime Minister Mir Zafrullah Jamali, when asked to quit, went meekly. Mr. Chaudhary's act of defiance, that too within Army House, before a President in full military uniform, has turned the Chief Justice into an icon of political resistance against the regime in a country that singularly lacks real political leaders. Unless you count Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, but they are outside the country anyway.

The return of Rana Bhagwandas, the senior-most judge after Mr. Chaudhary, who was visiting India when the crisis erupted on March 9, and his swearing in as the Acting Chief Justice — this is one of the demands of the agitating lawyers — may not put an end to the crisis. It has thus far seen unprecedented resignations by several of the country's judges and judicial officers, aside from a near continuous boycott of courts by the lawyers since March 10.

Several ruling party honchos have distanced themselves from the mess. Railway Minister Sheikh Rashid, who has a real constituency, was the first to say that the house arrest of the Chief Justice, if indeed it was that, was "wrong." Except for the Minister of Information and his deputy, and the faux pas committing Law Minister, others have been thunderingly quiet, so much so that President Musharraf felt the need to call them all over last Sunday for a talking-to. According to insider reports, the Cabinet was asked to demonstrate better esprit de corps.

Low credibility

For the first time too, President Musharraf's credibility is at its lowest within the country. His two-hour long interview on Geo TV, which the police attacked two days earlier during violent street protests in Islamabad, was evidently meant to give his side of the story, an attempt at damage control. But if reactions to the interview in the newspapers are anything to go by, many are unwilling to buy the explanations their President served up for why and how he made the Chief Justice "non-functional."

"Over the years, the Musharraf government has become increasingly unaccountable and deceitful. The military action in Balochistan was twisted as a bid by the government to restore its writ. The cold-blooded murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was painted as an accident and the state's refusal to hand over his body to the bereaved family was glossed over. All `disappeared' persons are being portrayed as `jihadis and suicide bombers' who have supposedly left their families voluntarily [when] there is overwhelming evidence that security and intelligence agencies have violated human rights," wrote eminent human rights activist-lawyer Asma Jahangir in the Daily Times.

"In the past those who wished to defend the President believed that he was misguided. Others took a less generous view and blamed him for living in self-denial. However, President Musharraf's interview with Geo TV gives the impression that the president has lost his touch in being able to deceive skilfully."

It is being asked, for instance, why, if President Musharraf called the Chief Justice to Army House, only at the latter's request and to hear his side of the story on the charges against him, were judges being flown in to Islamabad for an immediate meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council — the panel that would inquire into the reference — even as the two were speaking in Army House? And why was an Acting Chief Justice being sworn in at virtually the same time?

The President offered no explanations for the de facto house arrest of Mr. Chaudhary post-Army House meeting. He acknowledged "tactical errors" by junior functionaries only in the handling of the crisis, not in the summary manner of the removal. That is the phrase he has used before to explain why the peace deals with tribal militants in South Waziristan and North Waziristan were not working: "We have the strategy right, but there have been some tactical errors."

People have found it especially hard to believe that the lowest in the police force could have planned and carried out the attack on Geo TV, seen live by millions on their screens. President Musharraf apologised unreservedly for the attack, and an inspector and 13 other policemen were suspended, but the question uppermost on people's minds is: who ordered it?

A tactic?

There are few takers for the apology. Journalists in Geo TV are openly saying it was only a "tactic" the President employed to take the pressure off himself. Some media houses are playing an activist role in the current crisis and have resisted attempts at gagging. The attack on Geo TV contributed in large measure to turning the agitation from one that was mainly lawyers versus government into a broader political movement against the Musharraf regime in this election year.

"The lawyers' movement has acquired a broader agenda, addressing the survival of civil institutions under the weight of militarisation. Their support has widened, not out of love for the judiciary, but because of the shared abhorrence of military rule," Ms. Jahangir noted.

Indeed, a wide variety of grievances, from Pakistan's participation in the "war on terror" to the increase in the cost of living, have converged in the agitation whose main demand remains the reinstatement of Mr. Chaudhary.

The Opposition parties believe this is the "defining" moment in Pakistan's history, a real opportunity to convert the protests into a wider movement against military rule. But they have been struggling to present a united front in the present crisis, with the Pakistan People's Party of Benazir Bhutto expressing reservations about joining hands with the Islamist right-wing Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal.

The MMA, with its ability to muster street power, has been the most visible among the protesters, with assistance from the Nawaz Sharif-led Pakistan Muslim League.

But the PPP's standoffishness has also provoked remarks that Ms. Bhutto was playing a "dubious" role, and revived rumours about a deal in the offing between her and the military regime.

It is in this context that Ms. Bhutto decided to hold an "unscheduled" meeting with Mr. Sharif in London. The two later announced at a press conference that they stood united on the judiciary issue, and would hold a joint protest to protest the Chief Justice's ouster on March 26 in Pakistan. There was no word about whether or not the MMA would be invited to join this protest.

For President Musharraf, the mixed signals from the United States in the present crisis present a new front. The Bush administration said it was "a matter of deep concern" that had to be resolved "in a way that is completely transparent and strictly in accordance with Pakistan's laws." The U.S. continues to describe President Musharraf as its frontline ally in the war on terror, but has said it expects him to "follow through on his commitments" about quitting as the army chief.

From the time it became clear that the Chief Justice was going to do battle, it has been evident that this story would have no happy endings for President Musharraf even if he is able to manage the crisis. If the Supreme Judicial Council were to confirm the Chief Justice's removal, it would confirm the suspicion in the minds of many that the panel acted as a "rubber stamp" of the President. The other option is to reinstate the Chief Justice but it means the President has to accept he made a mistake. It could open the floodgates to more challenges that the regime may not be able to handle without resorting to strong-arm tactics.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Murder, most foul
Rivers in danger
No place to hide as nuclear deal enters last lap
Temperatures rising in Pakistan
Dangers of the growing global population
Fifty years of the European Union
Corrections and Clarifications
Dismay and shock
Mild rebuke
Conserve water

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu