Help: Muneer A Malik and Justice Tariq Mehmood in a Critical Condition
I am so angry right now, my blood is boiling, I am full of venom and my whole body and spirit is in an uncontrolled rage for I have once again seen the video of Munir A Malik speaking from PIMS hospital. I cannot say it better than Sophia Ali at Teeth Maestro who says ‘ here is a Pakistani hero whose voice was tortured to a whisper, yet they couldn’t subdue the volume of his incredible spirit, a radiance that empowers us all’.
There are times when it is not enough to feel outraged. One has to speak out. To express the outrage and to be heard, against that which is wrong. There are times in life when it is difficult to determine exactly what is right. Reality, after all, is complex and nuanced. However, there are also times - more often than we think - when there is no ambiguity about what is wrong. Just plain wrong.
Silence, at such moments - especially in the face of violence - cannot be justified. The least one can do is to call the wrong, wrong. These words are lifted in their entirety from a post Dr Adil Najam of ATP fame wrote earlier in the week on the descration of the Buddhist relics in Swat, as they are equally relevant for this post. (Even though ATP has not bothered to highlight the plight of Munir A Malik even in passing on their blog even after countless emails from me urging them to do so)
Love them or loathe them no-one can understate the role of the lawyers movement in reinstating the Chief Justice and thus reawakening Pakistan from its almost permanent comatose state. This new Pakistan is not and will not be paradise on earth, it is very much in its infancy, and it is being sculpted as I speak (even as I write this post) by you and me, by lawyers, by civil society and by our greatest hope the youth of Pakistan. It is a work in progress. Its ultimate aim is to reclaim the Pakistan of our founding fathers by standing for principle over profit. Its leaders are Muneer A Malik, Justice Tariq Mehmood, Hamid Khan, Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd amongst others and together they are ‘the sons of the Quaid’ and they are under attack
- Courtesy of Teeth Maestro (Dr Awab Alvi)
Teeth Maestro has a depressing interview with a weak Muneer A Malik, see it here
Furthermore there are reports that Justice Tariq Mehmood is also in a critical condition. This follows the torture and arrests of Ali Ahmed Kurd and Aitzaz Ahsan and other lawyers. Such acts are a war crime against the Pakistani people and demonstrate the depths to which a desperate zombie president will go to ensure his grip on power.
This is a time for action and as a nation we must stand tall against these actions with one voice. We can help by informing the world media and others to the dark realities of martial law in Pakistan. But above all we must pray for the health and recovery of these giants of men, may ALLAH be their and Pakistan’s saviour.
I now produce a selections of articles written by the legend himself, Muneer A Malik during the lawyers movement, both published in Dawn:
Not motivated by politics
By Muneer A. Malik - May 11 2007THE reference against the Chief Justice has placed government spokesmen in a tricky spot. Early on, they realised that a direct attack against the Chief Justice would be imprudent. It would contradict their stated position that the president had simply put certain material about the Chief Justice before the Supreme Judicial Council for assessment and determination, and that the government was entirely neutral in the matter. How then would the government go on the offensive?
It was Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani, that fearless defender of downtrodden dictatorships, who arrived at an ingenious solution. Why not target the lawyers instead? After all, the whole fuss had been created by the bar associations (albeit fuelled by the media). If the legal community could somehow be discredited, the media would lose interest and the opposition parties would get distracted by other issues. Unfortunately, the resultant government-generated propaganda aimed at discrediting the legal community has been blindly adopted by some in the ostensibly independent media. Even reputed columnists of this paper have chosen to attack the acts of the protesting advocates rather than the cause of these protests.
While devoting all its energy to the single-minded defence of the Chief Justice, the legal community neglected to explain its own actions to the public and left itself open to attack. This article aims at remedying that failure.
The first charge against the bar associations is that they have unduly politicised an issue that should, more properly, be a subject of pure constitutional and judicial debate. Let there be no doubt on this score; our struggle is political to the core.Our struggle is about the independence of the judiciary and the preservation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. These are not arcane legal issues to be dryly debated in closed courtrooms. They are issues that affect the lives of every single Pakistani.
Every citizen has the right to expect that he will live his life in a system based on the rule of law and not the arbitrary whims of a military dictator. Every citizen has the right to expect that, when he approaches the courts for justice, he will be heard by truly independent and fearless judges and not timid bureaucrats who hold on to their offices at the pleasure of a capricious ruler.
When the rulers of the day attempt to snatch away these basic fundamental rights, it is the right and duty of every conscientious citizen to speak out, loudly and clearly, against this outrage. It is, of course, not surprising that the stooges of a military dictatorship view the word “political” as an insult: to be used to tarnish the image of any cause or movement that they oppose. Non-democratic rulers loathe any references to politicians or to the masses they represent.
The very existence of politicians reminds them of the ugly fact that their own power stems from the barrel of the gun and not the will of the people. But when I use the word “political” to describe our struggle, I do not refer to party-based electoral politics. “Politics” is a word of Greek origin deriving from “polis” which means “city-state”. When Aristotle wrote of ‘ta politika’, he meant “affairs that concern the state and the citizens”.
Is the summary removal of a Chief Justice by an army chief not a question that concerns the state and its citizens? We forget, too often, that the Constitution is not a legal document created by lawyers for lawyers. It was a document created by politicians on behalf of the people. It is the embodiment of the people’s will as to how they wish to be governed.
Questions relating to its preservation and supremacy fall squarely within the political domain. Thus if political parties also wish to register their protest against the desecration of the Constitution and the stifling of the judiciary’s independence, they are fully entitled to do so. Rather, if they claim to be democratic parties, they are obliged to do so. When undemocratic regimes wish to quell public resentment about an unpopular move and stifle all public debate on the issue, they adopt a time-honoured strategy.
First, they label the issue as one of exceeding technical complexity that is not fit for public purview. The public is informed that the issue is beyond their comprehension and hence they should abandon open debate on the matter in favour of a decision by “experts” behind closed doors. Then the functionaries of the regime hunker down and wait for the tide of public opinion to pass so they can continue with their destructive agenda unimpeded.
Well, the instant issue is certainly not beyond the comprehension of the people of Pakistan. Every man on the street fully understands that a sitting Chief Justice was removed and then publicly humiliated on the president’s orders because he dared to make decisions that were popular with the masses but unpopular with the establishment. And every man on the street is competent enough to express his viewpoint on the matter.
Implicit in these charges of “politicisation” is the suggestion that the legal community is acting on the anti-government agenda of some political parties. The very idea is ridiculous. The bar associations are professional bodies comprising a large number of diverse individuals with a wide range of political opinions and persuasions.
All bar associations in all four provinces are united in the current struggle. It would have been impossible for us to maintain this unity had we aligned ourselves with any particular political party. This unity is forged solely on the basis of a common commitment to the independence of the judiciary - irrespective of any other political beliefs.
This is not an abstract ideal. Unless the security of a judge’s tenure is guaranteed, he cannot be independent. When a judge is not independent, he becomes useless to the people. Once people lose confidence in the judiciary, when they perceive it as ineffectual, when they refuse to have their disputes adjudicated by the judiciary and seek to settle them by other means, the descent of the nation into chaos and anarchy becomes inevitable.
One does not have to be an anti-government politician to be disturbed at this prospect and to speak out against it. Members of the bar have been the most vocal in their opposition to the government’s maltreatment of the Chief Justice because they are best placed to observe, day to day, its devastating effects.
The most frequent litigation in our courts is brought by citizens aggrieved by the acts of the government and its agencies. If this regime’s move to remove the Chief Justice is successful, no judge in future will have the confidence to decide such cases solely on the basis of merit and free from all fear of the consequences.
Lawyers are also being criticised for the fact that they have not confined themselves to the issue of the removal of the Chief Justice but have gone on to comment on the illegitimacy of General Pervez Musharraf’s military regime. Only a fool (or an apologist for the current regime) could argue that these two issues are not inextricably linked.
The sitting Chief Justice was summoned to the Army House and summarily removed by a uniformed general heading a military junta. Are we, then, supposed to criticise only the effect and not the cause? No doubt, our immediate objective is the restoration of the Chief Justice so that the instant attempt to dominate the judiciary can be defeated. But, in the long-term, the judiciary can only be truly independent in a democratic dispensation, where the rule of law and the Constitution reigns supreme.
We have all respect and reverence for those courageous heroes of the armed forces who risk their lives for the defence of the motherland. But we cannot extend this respect to those who misuse their power to trample upon the Constitution and democratic institutions.
The second charge laid against the legal fraternity is that their boycott of court proceedings on days that the Supreme Judicial Council conducted its hearings caused great inconvenience to litigants.
The members of the bar are fully cognisant of the plight faced by ordinary litigants when their cases do not proceed on the scheduled day. We are the ones who deal directly with them and can best appreciate their distress. However, what critics ignore is that the litigant is not there simply to have his day in court. He is there because he wants justice; and only independent judges can provide justice.
The wife of a missing person needs to know that the judge hearing the case is capable and willing to stand up to the government and take on the intelligence agencies and get her husband released. If the bar gives up its struggle and the government succeeds in its attempt to dominate the judiciary, such judges will be a thing of the past.
In the meanwhile, sacrifices are being made all around - not least by members of the bar; many of whom have given up or cut back on monetarily rewarding law practices to single-mindedly devote themselves to the struggle for the independence of the judiciary.
The boycott of court proceedings serves a dual purpose: firstly, it sends a clear message to the government that the entire legal fraternity will strongly resist any attempt by the executive to interfere with the judicial organ of state. Secondly, it reminds judges that the entire judicial edifice and its workings are founded upon the guarantee of their independence. Once that independence is lost, you might as well close down the courts.
Also, what the mouthpieces for the government intentionally fail to point out is that the leading cause of judicial delays remains the appalling shortage of judges. A judge of the Sindh High Court can typically expect to deal with at least 40 to 50 cases a day. The position is similar throughout the country. How is he expected to master the voluminous facts and complex points of law and deliver judgments in all the cases within the space of four to five hours?
By way of comparison, a judge sitting in the high court of England hears a maximum of one to two cases in a day. Despite repeated requests from the bar over the last several years, the government has refused to raise the sanctioned strength of judges. The reason is clear; the government does not want to make its own life difficult by raising the level of judicial scrutiny in the country.
What is more, as a direct result of the government’s ulterior motives, most of the courts in the country are operating far below their sanctioned strength. For example, the Sindh High Court currently has only 21 judges whereas its sanctioned strength is 28. But there is no hope of appointment of new judges in the near future.
Our Constitution mandates that superior court judges can only be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice. In the famous case of Al-Jehad Trust (also known as the “Judges case”) it was settled that this function cannot be performed by an Acting Chief Justice. By restraining the Chief Justice from performing his functions, General Musharraf has personally guaranteed the prolonged misery of litigants.
Until the Chief Justice is allowed to resume his functions, no new judges can be appointed and the superior courts will continue to be woefully undermanned. It is not out of place to mention here that, in the last judicial year alone, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’s stewardship, decided a total of 23,353 cases thus reducing the number of cases pending adjudication from 38,139 to 14,786.
This was hailed as a “landmark achievement” and the Full Court of the Supreme Court unanimously termed it as a “clear manifestation of the commitment and resolve of the Hon’ble Judges under the able leadership of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan”. Law Minister Wasi Zafar and his cohorts who now support the reference against the Chief Justice would do well to remember this fact before shedding crocodile tears in purported sympathy for the plight of litigants.
The third charge against us is brought by our own. Those poor souls who have become government mouthpieces for 30 pieces of silver or for the lure of high offices are unhappy that the bar associations and councils have cancelled their memberships. The legal profession is not a trade; it is a calling. When joining this profession, one makes a commitment to uphold the rule of law and the cause of justice.
I can only remind my errant learned friends of their professional duty by quoting from the ‘Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ that every advocate promises to observe:
“Whereas the Rule of Law is an essential feature of a civilised society and a pre-condition for realising the ideal of justice…”… And whereas (there is to be) a community of Advocates… dedicated to the task of upholding the Rule of Law and defending at all times, without fear or favour, the rights of the citizen;
“And whereas by their efforts Advocates are expected to contribute significantly towards the creation and maintenance of conditions in which a government established by law can function fruitfully so as to assure the realisation of political, economic and social justice by all citizens;”…
No client, corporate or individual, however powerful nor any cause, civil or political, however important, is entitled to receive, nor should any Advocate render any service or advice involving disloyalty to the law whose ministers they are, or disrespect the judicial officer, which they are bound to uphold… nor indulge in deception or betrayal of the public. When rendering any such improper service or advice the Advocate invites and merits stern and just condemnation.” (emphasis added).”
When they chose to turn their backs on the legal fraternity and abandon all pretences of serving the rule of law and upholding the judiciary, our erstwhile friends made a conscious choice. Now they cannot expect to have their cake and eat it too. But should this handful of misguided individuals realise the enormity of their blunder and the consequences of their greed, and resolve to abide by the ‘Canons of Professional Etiquette’, we shall have no hesitation, once again, in enfolding them in our embrace.
Finally, there are those cynics and nay-sayers who dismiss our efforts as futile and akin to creating a storm in a teacup.
First, let us objectively examine what our efforts, in the court rooms and outside, have already achieved. We have secured the release of the Chief Justice from his virtual house arrest and enforced isolation. The government has been compelled to backtrack and essentially apologise for its maltreatment of the Chief Justice.
After unlawfully removing the Chief Justice, the government had sought to install Justice Javed Iqbal as Acting Chief Justice in his stead. The president had attempted to have his decision to remove the Chief Justice hastily rubber-stamped by the Supreme Judicial Council in the absence of the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Rana Bhagwandas. Those attempts have failed.
We have procured the reconstitution of the Supreme Council to include Justice Rana Bhagwandas. Public opinion has been mobilised. The media is up in arms. The government’s actions have drawn strong criticism by the international community, not least by the International Commission of Jurists. For once, the bar and the bench are united. And now, the Supreme Court has been pleased to stay the proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council.
These are no mean achievements. This “storm in a teacup” has already ensured that, in future, only the most foolhardy of governments would dare to lay a hand on the judiciary’s independence. No doubt, the struggle ahead remains long and arduous. It shall require further efforts and sacrifices and the full cooperation of other forces in civil society. But the longest journey starts with a single step.
The writer is president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
And now the second article is here:
Ideals and expediency
By Muneer A. Malik - June 27 2007IN my first article about the current lawyers’ movement, I had countered sceptics convinced of its ultimate futility by reminding them that the longest journey starts with a single step.
Now, as the movement grows from strength to strength; as hundreds of thousands of people turn up to show their support from Abbottabad to Lahore, Peshawar to Chakwal; as an increasingly desperate regime seeks refuge behind the corps commanders, I have still not been approached by any intermediary seeking to broker a compromise.
To save everyone’s time, let me make the bar’s position absolutely clear. The demands of the bar are non-negotiable and brook no compromise. This is because of the inherent nature of this movement. To begin with, what are the objectives of our movement? Firstly, it is about changing the mindsets of our people. Throughout our history, the masses have viewed the bureaucracy, the military and the judiciary as part of the same ruling elite, cooperating with each other to subjugate the people.
The minds of the masses have been inoculated against the concept of true justice. We were taught obedience at the cost of our liberty and independence. This mindset is a hangover from our colonial past. These institutions were created by the British as a means of controlling the civilian populace. They were manned by Englishmen from the same background taught to venerate the same ideal - the preservation of the Raj.
Judges and ICS officers were not meant to empower the masses and improve their lot, they were there to keep the peace so the British could continue, unhindered, with their commercial exploitation and empire building. Likewise, the army’s primary role was internal not external. Their job was to quell local rebellions that could threaten British dominance. Alas! This role remains the same.
Decentralisation and separation of powers were never on the agenda. When a few thousand Englishmen set out to establish total control over a land of three hundred million people, any localised pockets of power could have proved fatal. A division of powers between the different institutions of state would be suicidal. Our fight is for a separation of powers, for constitutionalism, for the principle that all men are equal before the law and for the ideal that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Thus the DC ruled his district (with the willing cooperation of the local elite, the feudal lords) with a free hand and without any constraints. His basic job was to keep the people quiet and subservient to imperial dictates. If populist leaders, like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, B.G. Tilak or M.K. Gandhi, became too noisy, he knew he could always call upon his willing brothers in the judiciary to convict them for sedition or banish them from the practice of law. If matters went further, the likes of General Dyer would bail him out by shooting a few hundred natives for the restoration of ‘peace’.
The supposed impartiality and independence of judges in the colonial era is a complete myth. Of course, they were neutral when deciding land disputes between two natives. But when the interests of the Raj were at stake, when the interests of the people collided with those of their colonial masters, they never let their government down.Unfortunately, our nation’s independence and the departure of the British did not bring their system of governance to an end. Rather, a ‘coloured’ ruling establishment quietly stepped into the shoes of their departing masters and adopted their practices and beliefs. After all, it was more civilised to be an Englishman, notwithstanding that you were not admitted to their clubs unless you served as a waiter.
As a result, concepts such as the rule of law or the independence of the judiciary never took root in the minds of our people. We were never convinced that the judiciary’s true function was to guard the rights of the people and to protect the masses from oppression.
The first aim of our struggle is to change those beliefs. We seek to convince the masses that the courts are not there only to adjudicate property disputes between rich landowners or the competing commercial interests of multinational corporations, but that a truly independent judiciary will allow the common man to realise his fundamental rights. That judges with security of tenure will be fearless enough to administer true justice. That such judges will protect them from the abusive exercise of power by the wadera, the ‘seth’ or the SHO.
We seek to inculcate the belief that laws are not meant to be jealously preserved in jurisprudential tomes but to be applied, by activist judges, for the protection of the common man, and that the rule of law is an idea worth fighting for.
To do so, we have to change the mindset of our judges about their true duties and functions. This is our second aim. For too long they have functioned as if they were part of our military-bureaucracy, and now the plundering capitalist (the attempted sale of the Steel Mills being a case in point), establishment. They need to realise that they are no longer part of a foreign force seeking to forcibly impose its will upon the people. They need to end their alienation from the masses and align themselves with the wishes of the people.
Why is it that Justice M.R. Kayani considered it acceptable to contest elections and become president of the Civil Servants of Pakistan Association while he was sitting on the bench of the high court, particularly when the major portion of his duties involved the judicial review of the wrongful acts of civil servants?
It was not because of any particular lack of integrity on his part. Rather, he was known as an outspoken and honest judge. It is simply the pernicious elitism that pervades our entire judiciary that leads them to ally themselves with the ruling classes rather than with the masses. Our judges can easily identify with the causes of senior government officials but not those of a ‘kissan’. That is exactly why I call for a Supreme Court of the People of Pakistan.
Why is it that high court and Supreme Court judges consider it perfectly acceptable to lunch in elitist clubs and exchange views with industrialists, government ministers and advisers, bureaucrats et al, but shy away from sharing a cup of tea with the labourer or political worker at a trade union function? Does this not distort their perception about the needs and aspirations of the people of Pakistan?
The visit of the governor of Sindh - fresh from his debriefing in London - to the Sindh High Court is illuminating. Eyebrows were raised when seven honourable judges examining the May 12 tragedy refused to meet him and he was told that there could be no discussion on that issue. Why should there have been even an iota of surprise?
The government of Sindh, and the party to which the governor belongs, had been directly implicated in the tragedy of May 12. I say that at the risk of my life and that of my children.
Would there have been any astonishment if any judge refused to entertain a common litigant who wanted to have a cup of tea in the judge’s chamber and discuss the facts of his case? The commendable behaviour of the Sindh High Court judges was newsworthy because too often in the past our judges have fallen short of this standard of rectitude when it comes to the power elite.
The idea that judges interpret the law in splendid isolation strictly in accordance with recognised and time-tested legal doctrines is entirely fallacious. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that the Constitution is an organic document and needs continuous reinterpretation in light of changing times and needs. So who will inform them about the changing needs of the hour? Must it be the generals, the industrialists and the bureaucrats?
Take the example of the reviled doctrine of necessity. Blatantly illegal and unconstitutional acts were repeatedly justified by our Supreme Court on the basis that they were necessary for survival of the nation. And who was the spokesman for the nation? The generals.
Why can’t the needs of the nation be determined by directly listening to the voice of the nation? Why must the doctrine of necessity always be employed in favour of the military-bureaucracy establishment? Can it never be used in the other direction - to force a general (even if he has invented a specious legal cover for his actions) to respect the legitimate desires and aspirations of the people?
I recall discussing this issue with the late Justice Dorab Patel. A splendidly honest man, he felt compelled, nevertheless, to defend his brethren. He justified previous judicial decisions based on expediency on the grounds that they were made by a few old men left alone in face of the entire army’s might. This movement seeks to reassure our judges that they are not alone. If they choose to do the right thing, the whole legal community and the entire nation will turn out in their support.
The learned Chief Justice is no charismatic politician. His speeches, on purely legal issues, do not enthral the nation. But when hundreds of thousands of people stand all day in Lahore’s scorching heat and brave all night Faisalabad’s thunderstorms waiting to catch a glimpse of him, they do so to salute the courage of the man. They do so to show their support for a judge who dares to say ‘no’.
Our aim is to instil that courage in every judge throughout the land. Our aim is to illuminate a path that leads beyond the Maulvi Tamizuddin, Dosso, Nusrat Bhutto and Zafar Ali Shah cases.
Our third objective is to restore civilian supremacy in Pakistan. We are no longer prepared to live under the barrel of the gun. Those guns and their wielders must return to their rightful positions; facing outwards at the frontiers of our land. The people will rule themselves.
Of course, our elected politicians will make mistakes, both honest and dishonest, and there will be misrule. But the court of accountability must be 170 million Pakistanis and not nine corps commanders. Elected governments must complete their tenure and face up to their failures at the time of polling instead of being handed a convenient excuse by their forced ouster at the hands of the military.
Fourthly, our aim is to strengthen all the institutions of our state; the executive, the legislature, the judiciary as well as the media. Only by strengthening these pillars and strictly enforcing the limits on their separate powers in accordance with the Constitution can we protect ourselves from tyranny and secure the rule of law. Only then can we rid ourselves of the inequities of the past.
To achieve these goals, we welcome the support of every segment of civil society; the media as well as labour unions, NGOs as well as political parties. But our demands are non-negotiable. We will not sacrifice our principles at the altar of expediency. Any dialogue with the establishment can only begin after they take steps that concretely display their commitment to these principles.
Our history is replete with tragic compromises. We don’t need to go too far. The Zafar Ali Shah case was a compromise by the judiciary. Musharraf’s military takeover was legitimised in exchange for a promise that elections would be held and a civilian government installed within three years.
Five years have passed since those elections, but all power still rests with Musharraf and his corps commanders rather than with the prime minister and his cabinet. On March 9, 2007, while cabinet ministers hunkered under their beds, the ISI, MI and IB chiefs wreaked havoc.
The Seventeenth Amendment was a compromise by the politicians. Musharraf was allowed to continue as president despite his uniform in exchange for, essentially, a verbal promise that he would shed it in a year. Characteristically, he reneged and four years later he was donning the same uniform when he attempted to fire the Chief Justice. No amount of apology, no matter how sincere, will bring back lost times and opportunities.
For once in our history, people from every segment of civil society, judges and politicians alike, need to stand up for ideals and eschew the culture of deal-making. The struggle is not for tawdry offices and superficial power; it is about principles. If we can maintain our united commitment to these principles, we shall triumph and overwhelm all opposition. But if we fail to learn from history, we will be condemned to relive it.
The writer is president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Please also read the excellent article showering praise on the man and the legend by Zainul Abedin of The News:
The Human Condition : Munir A Malik
Zainul Abedin - 1 December 2007The torturer’s task is to destroy a man’s body in order to amputate his soul. The body, as frail as that of Munir A Malik, can easily be made to perish in pain. It’s the resilience of imperishable souls that have often resided in frail bodies that frustrates the torturer’s own sense of manhood, and the consequences for his victims are grave.
Malik’s body now faces the consequence of housing the human spirit. One had wished with every ounce of one’s being that this would not happen. And now, as one writes these lines, one feels that each smile that one smiled, every laughter that one burst into, was a crime, for all that while there lay bleeding in a dark dungeon of Attock Fort a man who personifies defiance to tyranny.
These cells and dungeons are reminiscent not only of kingdoms long lost but also colonialism that inflicted unspeakable brutalities on those who dared to dream of freedom. These “abattoirs of dreams” — as Faiz once called them — are also the natural inheritance of a neo-colonial state whose organs have never manifested the “general will”.
An alien power imposed on the people from above, this state can never afford to indulge itself in that liberal fantasy called the “social contract”. Rather than contracting its own demise in any contract with its own people, it has become a client state. This “overdeveloped” entity in relation to its underdeveloped subjects has also suffered an abnormality within itself; one of its organs, the armed one, has grown obscenely big and has long undermined and fed on the rest. Its mode of existence is the domination of all the other organs that face a choice between collaboration and termination. And collaboration has been the name of the game for the feudals and the compradors, the mullahs and the moderates that haunt the corridors of power.
Collaboration, like the devil, has many names; parliament, Senate, doctrine of necessity; vote of confidence; exit, safe exit, election, re-election; coalition, deal, and the most deceiving name of all, the opposition. All of them, ways and means of legitimizing a system that condemns our people to ruthless exploitation and then leaves them to rot in the filth of inhuman values that many a nation renounced long ago, when they became human enough.
So had been the way of things all along. But then moved a spirit of resistance in the most unlikely of the state’s organs. The judiciary, that most fervent respecter of the law of the jungle euphemistically known as the doctrine of necessity, refused to endorse this infamy anymore. It refused to be the handmaiden of the powerful and the corrupt. It wouldn’t let petty thieves with big credentials steal our assets. It wouldn’t let people be “disappeared” without asking why and meaning it. It could not be relied on as a pawn in the game of power and ambition. So it came under attack. What followed is, without exaggeration, a human drama unparalleled in history; an epic struggle by the legal fraternity to redefine the essence of our polity and politics. The sacrifices rendered, the storms weathered will be the stuff of folklores.
Something fundamental had changed and taken a qualitative leap in the minds of men. The weakest organ of the state, in that it has neither a popular electoral base nor the force of arms, had challenged the status quo and, in the face of persecution, turned to the people for support, thus shedding its alien, neo-colonial character. Too big a move, too grand a dream.
When an old order has outlived its utility but refuses to give way to the new, a sublime yearning for change, a spirit of revolt, seizes the best and the most gentle of men and leaves out moral and mental pigmies to defend the indefensibly rotten. One only has to compare Munir A Malik, Aitzaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmad Kurd and Tariq Mahmood with Wasi Zafar, Sher Afgan, Shiekh Rashid, Muhammad Ali Durrani and their ilk to see this truth.
There is beauty in Munir A Malik and others of his kind. They are like the first brushstrokes of dawn. It may be that in the struggle between dawn and the dungeon, Malik’s bodily life is cut short by those who decree death to vision, but his soul remains intact. His name now will inspire our generations in their struggle to throw off their yoke. The honour he has earned is immortal. “Never say die”, he said to the media while fighting death in a PIMS ICU. Very true. So, long you live, Munir A Malik, my brother.
And finally please also read the depressing report of Munir A Malik’s critical condition as reported in The News of 26th November:
‘Munir A Malik, the former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, while lying in critical condition at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), is still determined to fight for the restoration of the judiciary and the Constitution of Pakistan. “The lawyers’ movement will offer every sacrifice to restore the 1973-Constitution of Pakistan and chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and all other judges of the Supreme Court,” said Munir.
Munir had undergone dialysis twice on Sunday after his arrival in the PIMS but his belief in the success of the lawyers’ movement had nothing to do with his weakness. “We will continue our struggle till our goals are achieved,” he said, adding that his illness would not affect his determination. He told The News that he was psychologically tortured in jail with different tactics. He said he was on a hunger strike in the Attock jail when the jail administration served him with juice, which caused sudden deterioration in his health. “My belly was swelling and I was passing blood with urine. I asked for a doctor who only treated the blood and not the swollen belly,” Munir revealed, adding that he was provided with a specialist who, with a syringe, extracted water from his stomach.
He said his health was deteriorating continuously when an officer from the home department came to see him in jail. “Dr Wajahat, a doctor in Attock jail, told the home department officer that my life would be in danger if not shifted to hospital for proper treatment,” said the ailing lawyer. Munir A Malik’s sister, Iffat, while talking to The News, said that Munir’s health was continuously worsening and, therefore, they had to go for the dialysis. She said that many people had come personally and many more had called to donate their kidneys to the leader.
Visitors from the civil society placed bouquets with “Get well soon” cards in front of the room in which Munir was admitted. Civil society members also protested in front of the PIMS on the treatment allegedly meted out to Munir by the law enforcement agencies during his detention. A superintendent of the Income Tax Dept, Rawalpindi, who came to pay tributes to Munir, said he had come to donate his kidney. “My son from the UK had asked for Munir’s account to donate some money,” the government officer said, adding: “I came here from Rawalpindi only for paying tribute to Munir A Malik.
- Originally posted on 2nd December 2007, 21.25 PK Time, written under MARTIAL LAW