Pakistan in Media

Those personally affected by the judgement of the Supreme Court setting aside the ignominious NRO and re-opening cases that were hushed up under it have reacted with yet more ignominy that consists of doing everything that the country has been harmed by in the sixty-three years of its existence. They have defied the court. They have tried to pit institution against institution. They have sought to fan the flames of ethnicity. They have threatened to amputate the limbs of those in the media who expose their corruption. They have done everything except the one honourable thing for them to do; to resign and face the courts. What they have done and are doing may be despicable, but it is not unexpected. It is in perfect harmony with the character shown and the deeds done by this lot for the past two years that they have been in power. The same cannot be said about some others whose integrity and commitment to the ideals of justice and good governance we do not doubt: they have been in the forefront of the struggle for human rights and for a democratic Pakistan. Some of them were vigorously active in the judiciary's struggle against a brutal dictatorship. That is exactly why we find it ironic that they now have chosen to judge the SC judgement in a manner that has little to set them apart from how Musharraf and his minions saw the present judiciary or how Zardari and his henchmen are trying to defame it. They have found the judgement biased, as targeting specific individuals, as persecuting a particular party, as going beyond the pale. And what have they to offer in the way of argument? Precious little. Having a problem with a short order and with the unanimity of the judges (or wondering why the judges were not divided on the issue?) who passed the judgement amounts to actually nothing. Asking why Musharraf was not mentioned in the judgement takes guts though. For the question is being hurled at a judiciary that made history fighting that man in uniform, while some of these critics were, at least for a while, busy trying to make people see that the struggle was one man's quest for glory and had little to do with the independence of the judiciary. This question is apparently also being posed to defend those who actually committed the affront of blocking the reinstatement of the judges, of aiding and abetting the former dictator's escape from the country after they had presented him with the guard of honour. If it is not easy today to bring Musharraf to justice, the accusing finger has to be pointed at Zardari and his men and not those who still cause Musharraf enough worry not to return to the country. And playing the Musharraf card does nothing but adds to the nervous shrieks of those who were his loyal partners then, and are in power now. How does that serve the cause of democracy?