I really have no
Here is the short report in Dawn of today's proceedings in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, still hearing a case against the 18th Amendment as the rest of the country copes with death, destruction and disease. Read it and weep. The operative part of that report is this:
"During the hearing, the federation lawyer said that the parliament's powers were limitless. Responding to that, Chief Justice Iftikhar said that limitless powers could secularise the country."
Yes I know all about the mis-translation into Urdu of 'secularism' as 'la-deeniat' decades ago and the confusion it has caused in ordinary people's minds ever since. But when the chief justice of the highest court is able to say things like this, probably with all the pseudo-gravitas he can muster, you have to wonder about the intellectual bankruptcy of this nation's powers-that-be.
Free Iftikhar Chaudhry!
And Aitzaz Ahsan believes this man is the saviour of Pakistan?
Posts
20 comments:
First of all, I can't believe they are obnoxious (more like stupid) enough to be discussing the 18th amendment at such a time of crisis.
Second of all, very unfortunate use of words =|.. If our highest judge makes such intelligent statements, let's just say, in very non-secular terms, iss mulk ka Allah hi hafiz hai.
He got reinstated back with such passion. It wasn't just Aitzaz Ahsan who thought he "saviour material", more than half Pakistanis saw him as a beacon of light. Why does our nation value rhetoric over ability?
Leaving the debate of the benefits of a secular vs. non-secular pakistan aside, I do not see how Justice Iftikhar Ch. drew a correlation between secularism and limitless parliamentary powers. Even if it was translated as "la-deeniat" how is that still a rational inference? :s
because if the parliament can amend anything that's part of the constitution, then yes, if things go that way, it can bring amendments to state religion etc. sad part is, this was the first concern that the CJ had? another populist fuckwit perhaps..
I remember NFP wrote a few articles against those who were supporting the so-called 'lawyers movement', saying that it was esstentially a 'right-wing' movement supporting a rightist cj. However, poor NFP was hounded and blasted by all these liberals.
I must admit I too was smitten by this guy the CJP, but more and more I feel that we were all taken for ride by what we thought was a fantastic movement. :P
This is crazy. No wonder Aitzaz Ahsan has gone all quiet.
@Yawar,
What is wrong with 'right wing'? one way or other, the majority is what you would classify as right wing.
I am not arguing with you. Just want to know your thoughts.
with all due respect, why does the CJ's decision leave you 'gobsmacked'?
despite his tiny group of articulate supporters claiming that the movement was secular, the CJ never made any such claims (not to my limited knowledge). moreover, the aforementioned supporters were not the people who made his restoration a one-point agenda, it was largely the PML-N, the PTI and JI who began defining the movement post Nov 07.
and isn't the state being non-secular one of the reasons for its existence? even the quaid was notoriously ambivalent on that front... sure he made the 11th august speech, but he skirted the issue countless times as well. perhaps we should give up on the secular ghost, particularly since no leader has ever dared, or even considered going into that option.
at the end of the day, listening to court cases is essentially what the CJ's job is. regardless of whether there is calamity outside, he can't be expected to adjourn everything and wait for the flood waters to recede.
again, i am not seeking to defend the CJ or claim that he is something he patently isn't. my point is that its been pretty clear for a while which way he likes to swing, and as such these declarations are no longer surprising, are they?
@karachikhatmal
I agree with you
it is amazing that how retarded people can start to behave out of sheer hate, they are also objecting that why is CJ hearing the cases when floods have struck pakistan
hello the job of CJ IS to hear CASES, CJ is not running rescue
1122.
Do the floods mean that doctors stop attending patients in hospitals ? teachers stop going to schools ?
may be the author can also stop writing his blog due to the floods
I dont see anything wrong in CJ comments, may be the ones complaining think that our fake degree parliament of feudals and goons has more wisdom than Quran and Sunnah and hence needs "limitless power"
ofcourse the limitless power means that they can do constitutional amendments against the spirit of Islam
Why is Islam CJ's first concern? It'd be better if it remained the parliament's concern. Or do the 17 think themselves more important than the 170 million? Politicians are corrupt? Isn't that what they always say when a certain government becomes inconvenient for a certain group of people? Will anyone discuss that the 'trust deficit' with regard to sending aid on part of other countries is ALSO because the holy army has a history of using it for usually anything but aid? One track minds, morons.
@yawar
Yes I clearly remember NFP doing those pieces for Dawn in which he was castigating those who were claiming that the lawyars movement was secular. And i also remember NFP warning that the movement had been long hijacked by the jamati types and that CJP was towards the right in his ideology.
It was rather naive of a lot of us to believe that this CJP guy was some kind of a progressive saviour. Phitay moon!
@karachikhatmal:
Yeah, generally I agree with you that one should not be so surprised. And yes, it's pretty clear which way the CJ's personal opinions lean. But what I was taking issue with is 1) his naked presumption that the 1973 constitution can never be amended/altered/changed even if the entire population of Pakistan demands it (a constitution that he, incidentally, was happy to amend 'the basic character of' himself for a military dictator) and 2) the palpable fear inherent in his pronouncement. Perhaps more than anything, I was surprised that he does not even feel the need to disguise his idiotic views in some high-falutin legal logic.
Incidentally, had I been the government's counsel, I would have immediately asked him 'So?' But of course, too much to expect from lawyers who get cowed down by ranks and positions rather than challenge logic.
"and isn't the state being non-secular one of the reasons for its existence? " Actually I don't subscribe to this theory and I think Jinnah was fairly clear on this in his own mind, even though he may have been guilty of not spelling things out as clearly as he should have for the idiots who followed him. But this is a long debate.
"regardless of whether there is calamity outside, he can't be expected to adjourn everything and wait for the flood waters to recede."
I didn't mean to imply that he should give up hearing ALL cases, apologies if it came across that way. My aside about the 18th Amendment was meant to refer to the inordinate amount of time the court has spent on a case that basically exists only because the court itself has vested interests in it.
@Anon422:Hello, you are, sir/madam, simply juvenile. Please go back to doing your school homework, and don't attempt to ride on other people's opinions that you can't even understand properly.
"My aside about the 18th Amendment was meant to refer to the inordinate amount of time the court has spent on a case that basically exists only because the court itself has vested interests in it."
Thank you for saying that out loud.
When is the CJ retiring? Or would he too come back as ad hoc judge.
xyz... why you always try to ridicule people when you dont have any answer...
The point made by anon422 was valid and to the point..
I know you will ridicule my comment also...
The CJ's proclamation shows an inherent bias of the court to limit the powers of parliament. I think this is a new development and should be seriously taken note of by parliament. The CJ is using the Islam thing as a cover because one just has to say the word Islam and all critical thinking is immediately suspended. His real motive, I would guess, is to limit the power of parliament. Notice how the bench tried to use other taboo subjects, such as legalisation of same sex relationships as a way to argue that parliament was restricted by Islamism.
Of course there is much evidence that the court system is sympathetic to Islamists and is now heavily infiltrated by them. They have all but taken over folks. The rest is just our delusion.
People don't realise that Pakistan's downhill trajectory since the late 1960s is directly linked to an ever increasing popularity for Islamism (politics and a wahabi/salafist ideology taking on the garb of Islam). Top to bottom people are brainwashed by this genie even though it's got us by our throat and resulting in economic and societal collapse with violence everywhere. Because of this ideology (which claims to be Islam) our enemies are multiplying like rabbits.
In addition to the Chief Justice, other learned lordships had also chimed in, with Justice Ramday focusing on the threat of gay marriage, and Justice Pervaz focusing on Islam as the state religion. Allah be praised.
I agree with Annie on this issue. Not to mention that I too am in favor of a secular Pakistan with its people yearning to achieve standards in ethics and morality. Mr. Chief Justice was quick enough to take "Suo Moto" notice of sugar price hike, failed to take any such notice of brutal target killing in Karachi and is emotionally afraid of the country defecting to the hands of "Secularism". I am literally confused whether the campaign, the poeple of Pakistan launched, meant to save the institution or Mr. Chief Justice himself.
I, however, am still hopeful. Lets hope the process of democracy itself cleanses out the dirt as it moves on.
Technically, you cant take out the words "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" or "secularize" Pakistan without undoing the 1973 constitution itself, or going back to another constituent assembly. Not that it would be an undesirable path to follow.
Unfortunately this has been a knee-jerk response from Cafe Pyala. Loony liberals?
I am sure you guys would be out on the streets once again if there was an attempt to set aside the 1973 constitution and write it afresh as per todays requirements. Just like you were out with the Lawyers movement and put the current CJ back into "power".
When people are guided by "ideologies" (whether left-wing or right wing) instead of 'reason", we end up with current scenarios...
Why wouldn't the court show as much, if not more, enthusiasm, regarding the missing persons' case and also what was pulled off on May 12..? Can you explain that?
this is what dawn had to say:
http://j.mp/9NMREE
Is not that the function of a representation of a people? A parliament whose autohority is not limitless (within the confines of its state) is no representation of public will!
You cannot eat the pastry and keep it as well!
Post a Comment