Imran Khan


SC rejects Imran’s plea against rule change: ‘Politicians passing the buck’

One may disagree with a supreme court’s decision but one must respect it as long as it is according to the law and has strong legal arguments to back it.  This especially after the whole nation is euphoric that we, the people, have finally freed our courts of government intervention.  All might look bleak but at least as long as we have independent courts, there is hope.  SC had further reassured the nation by taking some really bold decision in past few months.

I would normally be whole heartedly accepting this decision by the SC but what muddles the waters and leaves a sour taste in my mouth is this comment from Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar who was part of the bench that delivered their decision.  Justice Khokhar argued, “We must be sensitive at this juncture that power has to be transferred from military to civilians”.   This is a political statement, law must be interpreted regardless of what the perceived ground realities are.  Justice Khokhar’s statement has the easily discernible stink of the abominable doctrine of necessity that has been used several times to legitimize military rule in Pakistan.  The so-called doctrine of necessity has made a mockery of Pakistan’s judicial system and is commonly believed to be one of the main reasons why army has ruled the country directly or indirectly throughout its history.  After all that transpired between March 19th and July 20th, are we still looking at the skies for miracles? Too early to decide, the arguments given by the court to support their latest decision were nevertheless disappointing.

I found this on the PTI website, I would have loved to put a link to the article instead of pasting it here, alas our techie friends at PTI do not have links to individual articles (I have put in my suggestion already). Here’s Imran’s thought-provoking analysis of the struggle between the “liberal fanatics” and the “religious fanatics” in Pakistan. This is true for not only Pakistan but most of the Muslim world.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place
by: Imran Khan

Fanatics to the left of us, fanatics to the right of us, with Pakistan caught in the middle. There are two minuscule fanatical groups, the influential liberal fanatics and the religious fanatics, at either end of the spectrum. Trapped and held hostage in the middle is the moderate majority, from westernized liberals who are genuinely tolerant of others’ views to the genuinely religious with open minds who believe that there is no compulsion in religion. There is also plenty of ignorance and as a result plenty of confusion, especially amongst the youth.

Because to liberal fanatics modernization means westernization, they have to perforce look down on their own culture and religion. Lacking a proper understanding of Islam they see the religion through western eyes, convinced that it is a retrogressive, primitive creed of ancient desert folk. Resultantly they are convinced that Islam impedes Pakistan’s progress, meaning westernization. Thus though the mullah has never been part of our effete and corrupt ruling elite, he is blamed for Pakistan’s current crises. To the liberal fanatic secularism means being anti-Islam, as in Kamalist Turkey. Lacking respect for and an understanding of Pakistan’s history and culture, their every solution to Pakistan’s problems is imported. Hence liberal fanatics have variously advocated Marxism, women’s liberation, market economy, and other western beliefs which are being boosted by a particular lobby for a western-specific purpose at a particular point in time. Only free minds can have the original ideas so desperately needed by this country.

Liberal fanatics credit India’s recent economic success not to the country’s better education system but to the ‘westerness’ of Indian culture as falsely portrayed by some of their TV channels by attempting to remove all Indianness from their characters. They don them in Western clothes, give them American accents and, most shockingly, white skins. Indian looking caricatures are objects of ridicule while the hero or role model is always fair and totally westernized.

These people have only to study colonial history of the past two centuries to realize that wherever an alien culture was imposed on an indigenous people it caused mass upheaval, disruption and destruction to their way of life. From the Aborigines of Australia to the Indians of the Americas and most of Africa the local people fell between two stools in the name of modernization. The societies that have been success stories have all used western knowledge but developed in the context of their own culture and environment like Japan and China. Desi liberal fanatics preach secularism, yet they don’t fully understand the evolution of secularism in Europe. Martin Luther’s movement was to free religion from the stranglehold of the church, not to get rid of religion altogether. The Desi secularists have been heavily influenced by Marxism with its anti-religion and anti-family message and American secularism. After the bitter Scopes court case in 1925, the secularists turned fiercely anti-religion and after a hard fought campaign won a huge victory when in 1963 the US Supreme Court actually disallowed the teaching of religion in state schools. Martin Luther, who was a God fearing man, would be turning in his grave at the thought of where the movement that he began to break the tyranny of the church has ended up. Unfortunately our liberal fanatics are bent upon imposing western secular values on a country where the vast majority’s entire way of life is influenced by religion. Their arrogance arises out of a feeling of ‘superiority’ that westernization bestows on them.

When our liberal fanatics talk of women’s rights it is not from the Islamic perspective but a western one. Again the struggle of western woman for emancipation is within the context of their history and culture, totally alien to the Muslim experience. Hence when the real liberal Mohammed Ali Jinnah was addressing the Aligarh students in 1938, he appealed to them to work for the emancipation of the Muslim woman: “This is essential; but I do not want to ape the evils of the West.” Similarly, the other great Muslim liberal Allama Iqbal always kept stressing to the Muslim youth to find their own way and not “tread on others’ paths.” Iqbal was an original because by having in-depth knowledge of the Quran, Islamic history as well as European philosophies he was in a position to critically evaluate Islamic as well as western civilization. If only we had a scholar of Iqbal’s calibre today he would have questioned the direction western civilization has taken; e.g. in its exploitation of women, as in beauty contests, in advertisements where half-clad women are used to sell products, or where fashion forces women to display their bodies. He would certainly have commented on the proliferation of public immorality in the name of freedom and its role in the breakdown of the family. And, its impact on the devaluing of the role of the mother, a role so highly regarded in Islam. Iqbal would certainly have questioned homosexual marriages and gay couples adopting children.

Liberal fanatics overlook such issues because westoxified minds are in no position to critically analyze the direction in which western civilization is headed. The irony is that in the Victorian age, the peak of British civilization, public morality was much higher than in most of the Muslim World today. Indeed, the Victorians thought Islam a permissive religion. Consequently, and not surprisingly, the family system and values were strong. If the liberal fanatics had their way we would destroy the only institution that is keeping our society from completely falling apart, our family system. Already satellite and cable TV are causing tremendous frustration amongst our youth and putting a great strain on our social system.

At the other extreme we have religious fanatics whose numbers are growing by the day. The main cause of religious extremism is injustice: the growing gap between rich and poor, with the majority of the population being denied education, employment, health and justice. With no stake in the system, militant Islam becomes appealing to the dispossessed. Add to this the injustices against Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Palestine and so many other places. Eighty percent of all refugees in the world are Muslim. It is not hard to see why the idealistic and romantic amongst us are driven to take up arms. In the last century such European romantics fought in the Spanish Civil War. There are, of course, religious zealots who through sheer ignorance decided to force their uninformed version of Islam through the barrel of the gun. Such bigots have done tremendous damage to Islam as they have failed to understand that Islam is a battle for conquering hearts and minds. The Quran repeatedly says that there is no compulsion in religion. The Messenger (PBUH) was told by Allah in the Quran that his job was simply to proclaim His message, the real meaning of Iqra “Proclaim the Word of God who created Man from a clot.” Whether people converted or not wasn’t Muhammad’s (PBUH) business. There are yet others who have killed fellow Muslims in the name of their sect, doing the greatest damage to a religion that constantly preaches tolerance and rejects sectarianism, tribalism and clannishness of any kind other than the ummah, the universal brotherhood of believers on One God. The worst of the fanatics are those who have actually made Islam a business proposition. Then there are those who have become fanatics as a reaction to their religion and way of life being threatened by western culture. This is because of little understanding of western culture due to a sub-standard education system in which everything western is regarded with suspicion, part of a western or a Jewish conspiracy. This group is not only anti-west but is also anti- all the westernized Pakistani elite.

As to the question about how a country deals with the complex issue of religious fundamentalism, the liberal fanatics have only one answer, one very close to Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’: they want the army to take them on. The same group that, quite rightly, preaches dialogue with India, has the most illiberal solutions for its own countrymen.

In fact liberal fanatics are not equipped to hold any dialogue with religious fanatics simply because they are not armed with sufficient knowledge of Islam. In any case religious fanatics consider liberal fanatics (with some justification) as toadies of the West. We need an Iqbal to fight religious bigotry for the only weapon against fundamentalism is enlightened Islam. Fanatics need to be told about Islamic history, how other religions and other points of view were tolerated in days when Europe was ruled by bigotry and ignorance. Islam never knew the savagery of the Inquisition where people were put through unimaginable tortures in the name of religion. As early as the 9th Century AD Muslim scholars were debating the rights of the child. The sophistication of debate was such that a scholar, before putting forth his point of view, would start by saying, “it is possible that I may be wrong.” It was this freedom of thought and the spirit of inquiry that created the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Islamic World to produce all the world’s top scientists for 750 years. Had it not been for the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongolians in 1258, and had the autocratic Mongolian mindset, that stifled debate, not taken over the Muslim world, it would not be in such a sorry state today.

It was scholars like Jamal-ud-din Afghani, Mohammed Abdu and Iqbal who talked about the movement of thought through Ijtihad. Iqbal argued that just as the European Renaissance and Reformation were triggered off by the acquisition of knowledge from the Muslim universities of Spain, and the Middle East during the Crusades, it was high time that the Muslims used western knowledge to “reconstruct religious thought.” The reason why even today Iqbal is regarded our greatest scholar is because he was able to give the Islamic perspective on contemporary issues of the time, like democracy, socialism, and capitalism.
To end fanaticism both religious and liberal we need to gather genuine Muslim scholars from Pakistan and abroad and hold debates on TV and radio. Pakistani youth needs to know the relevance of Islam to their lives in the 21st Century. We need to find “our own way” rather than importing ideologies that have no relevance to our lives and have failed to deliver. A modern day Ijtihad done by genuine Islamic scholars (and there are plenty of them in the world) will not only give us a common vision and values, it will also marginalise the extremists at both ends. Above all our ruling elite might finally break the shackles of mental slavery and find homegrown solutions to our problems.

Here’s a well researched, detailed article from The National Post -

The hidden risks of the photo op

What remains to be seen is whether this verdict can be used to further support the case that Imran has filed against MQM in a London Court.

Recently MQM filed a reference against Imran Khan in the National Assembly under article 62-63 of the constitution. This was in reaction to Imran Khan accusing MQM’s leader Altaf Husain of terrorism after the murder of more than 30 people in Karachi on March 12th and preparing to file a case against him in the British courts. It’s a sad state of affairs when a party responds to the charges of killing several people by launching personal attacks on the accuser. Here’s a brief video on article 62-63 and Imran Khan’s response to it (the vidoe is in Urdu, for the actual text and brief discussion in English, see the text below the video).

Let’s see what these two articles actually say. Here is the text of article 62 from the constitution of Pakistan -

[62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless :-
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;

[64B][(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty -five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in-

(i) any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a seat reserved for non-Muslims; and
(ii) any area in a Province from which he seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women.]
(c) he is, in the case of Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal Capital or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership;
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen;
(g) he has not been convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude or for giving false evidence;
(h) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the Ideology of Pakistan
Provided that the disqualifications specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) shall not apply to a person who is a non-Muslim, but such a person shall have good moral reputation; and
(i) he possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed by Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).]

 

This is quite interesting, has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of legal text I have ever come across. Besides the fact that more than 75% of the elected members of the Pakistan parliment will get disqualified if this is ever applied on a massive scale, this is too vague, personal and undemocratic to be included in the constitution of a state that claims to be a democracy. Let’s especially look at parts d,e and f.
1. Part d says that the person has to be of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islam.
Firstly, how does one define good character. Do Muslim scholars have any agreement on what good character is? Secondly, a person who is commonly know as one who violates Islam may be the most righteous one around. Can we judge a person’s piety by what others say about him? It is thus possible to disqualify an elected member of the parliament by creating a perception that s/he violates Islam. If people of Pakistan are giving the person their vote of confidence in his capabilities and character by electing him to the parliament, how can some vague notion of character be used to disqualify him? That is an insult to the people of Pakistan
2. Part e states that the person must have adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam and abstains from major sins.
This again is deliberately kept vague so that it can be opportunistically used for political purposes. “Adequate knowledge of Islam” – who is the judge of that? Islam by its very nature is a democratic religion, Islam does not have a pope, everything is between you and your God. The idea of having one individual or a set of individuals assigned to assess righteousness in others goes against the very spirit of Islam.
3. Part f says that the person in question has to be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen”.
In the 32 years of my life (21 in Pakistan and the rest in the US), I have yet to meet even a single individual who meets this criteria. How can such personal and highly subjective qualities of a person be proven or disproved in the court of law. Remember, the purpose of the constitution is to set the basis of legislation, how can any precise law be derived from this article.
We must ask how did such articles make it into our constitution. As expected, it was the same person who arguably caused more harm to Pakistan than any other individual in its history – General Zia-ul-Haq. These preposterous articles were included in the constitution on Presidential Ordinance No. 14 of 1985. Remember this was the time the general was busy courting the religious parties. Now let’s look at the article 62 from the original constitution of 1973. It reads as follows –

“62. Qualifications for membership of Parliament.– A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Parliament unless:
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan,
(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll for election to that Assembly;
(c) he is, in the case of the Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal Capital or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership; and
(d) he possess such other qualifications as may be prescribed by Act of Parliament.”

Notice the precise language, this is what our constitution was before the military dictators, first Zia-ul-Haq and then Musharraf tarnished it to the point that it has ceased to remain a constitution at all.
I urge all Pakistanis to campaign to revert articles 62 and 63 back to their original form as they were in the 1973 constitution. They were inserted into the constitution to pacify the religious extremists and have no place in the constitution of a democratic or an Islamic republic. Every time I read our constitution I get bewildered by so many things that just do not make any sense at all. Most of them can be traced back to Zia’s regime.

I posted this a few days ago on my blog, posting it again here.

Following four are must see videos of Imran Khan’s address in London, especially watch the first one below.

Must See -

Part #1

Part #2

Part #3

On a side note, in his speech (the first one above) Imran briefly alludes to Justice Munir’s decision (in 1954) that by introducing the so-called “doctrine of necessity” provided an escape clause for the army whereby they could legitimize their actions against the constitution of Pakistan. Following articles discuss Justice Munir’s decision and its affects on Pakistan’s legal and political system. They also have some other interesting details.

  1. The Doctrine of Necessity and Pakistan’s Poodle Judiciary -
    1. The higher court judges had been ordered on January 19 to take a new oath under a provisional constitutional order, some three months after General Pervez Musharraf had taken power and scrapped the constitution. According to Justice Zahid, when they were to take the oath the following day, the registrar gave the judges blank forms from which they were to recite.
    2. In 1954, just seven years after the creation of Pakistan, Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the first constitutional assembly and the government of Prime Minister Khawja Nazim Uddin. The president of the assembly, Moulvi Tamiz Uddin, challenged him in the Sindh High Court and won: the dissolution was held to be illegal and unconstitutional. On appeal to the Chief Court of Pakistan, which was later renamed the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Munir decided in favour of the governor general. The basis for his decision was the “doctrine of necessity”: meaning that to preserve the country the constitution had to be abandoned.
  2. Ifs and Buts of Separation of Power – insightful editorial that traces the history of why separation of powers has never been effectively implemented in Pakistan and how Munir’s doctrine of necessity is the root of the problem.