By Naeem Sadiq - Management consultent
When the accused is a ‘pir’
Good lawyers are often judged by the stances they adopt when they run out of truth and, at the same time, of legal arguments. Many tend to fall back on theatrics, histrionics, distortion and even poetry to make up for the deficiency.
However, Barrister Aitzaz touched new heights of judicial decadence when he pleaded that his client being a “pir” and a “gaddi nashin” should be treated differently from ordinary citizens, notwithstanding the offence. Mercifully, he did not demand that the seven judges come down from their raised platform to kiss the hands and touch the feet of the accused even before beginning to hear the first argument.
Coming from someone considered Pakistan’s leading lawyer and a champion of democracy, such an undemocratic and dynastic statement reflects the reality and the nature of politics and society in Pakistan. It confirms that the change that an average Pakistani is looking for is not around the bend. Not only that, the voter is inextricably bound in the chains of the landlord, the “pir,” the “gaddi nashin,” the sardars, the biradari, of those wielding sectarian and ethnic influence. But the ruling classes are equally united in their manipulative devices to sanctify these undemocratic and dynastic institutions.
Acid-attack victim Fakhra committed suicide by jumping from her 6th-floor apartment in Rome. Ironically, her suicide comes in the wake of our new legislation against acid-throwing and Chinoy’s Oscar-winning film Saving Face. Clearly, neither the laws nor Saving Face could save Fakhra’s face or her life. Our focus lies only in awards, ceremonies and seminars, and not on putting an end to the tragedies displayed in the film.
So, somewhere in the bar rooms, another worthy barrister must be getting ready to defend the rich acid-thrower, Bilal Khar. After all, Khar, son of Ghulam Mustafa Khar, is a scion of a powerful political dynasty of the landed “waderas” of Pakistan, and, to go by the above mentioned legal reasoning, he cannot be equated with those petty street acid-throwers.
Pakistan is caught in a time warp and the prognosis is not cheerful. Its poor masses have been kept too backward and uneducated to do anything for their own betterment and the ruling cartel is too happy to exploit its monopoly. The second and third generation of the ruling elite is being groomed to take over and prove that their elders were novices in the art of plunder.
The educated professional class is happy to sit on the sidelines since it can have all the fun without sharing any responsibility. When sufficiently motivated it could even invent excuses which have nothing to do with jurisprudence, like as to why a “pir” should not be punished.
So where do we go from here? Is there a political party that is willing to be the party of ordinary people? One that is willing to nominate no candidate who is a “sardar,” “wadera,” or “pir,” or whose claim to fame is his political or “spiritual” lineage?
Pakistanis should not expect reforms from leaders unwilling to reform themselves or their parties. Those who proceed abroad for medical treatment (at state expense) in specially chartered airliners are not likely to spend much time on improving the local hospitals. Likewise, those whose hands are kissed and feet are touched by the mindless millions are not likely to exhibit democratic or egalitarian behaviour.
It is astonishing that the educated elite of Pakistan is always so ready to defend the cesspool that our politics has become, but not willing to organise and push for much-needed reforms. These reforms are urgently needed in the dynastic and political parties collecting “bhatta” (extortion money), the atrophied Election Commission, the non-functional educational system and the justice system working at snail’s space, to name a few.
The parties must declare that henceforth they will not accept candidates who use titles like “sajjada nashin,” “pir’, “sardar,” “gaddi nashin” and “wadera,” or those who receive “offerings” and “nazranas.” Their candidates will not have fake degrees, will not collect “bhatta,” will not be foreign nationals and will voluntarily surrender all weapons that they hold.
The Election Commission could learn a lesson or two from its Indian counterpart. How come civil society accepted the election involving 37 million fake votes? Without batting an eyelid, without demanding accountability or overhaul of the electoral process?
Clearly, the educated, rich and powerful segments of civil society has sided with the status quo by refusing to grow out of its foreign-funded seminar mode. Not protesting to eliminate the root causes (such as official proliferation of weapons) and hoping to achieve peace through candlelit vigils is neither rational nor likely to make an iota of difference to the situation.