Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has reiterated on a couple of occasions recently his institution’s pledge to uphold supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. It would not be fair not to welcome the pronouncement. But being a professional soldier one is more than certain that he would like to be judged by his performance on the twin fronts of defence and security — a job to which he has once again underscored his institution’s commitment — rather than for his dedication to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law which too, though, is his and his institution’s bounded Constitutional obligation. The dedication with which his institution is pursuing the Radd-ul-Fassad campaign rendering enormous sacrifices in life and limb speaks volumes about COAS Gen Bajwa’s leadership qualities and professional competence. History would surely remember his achievements on this front and a grateful nation would hold him in high esteem for all times to come for sincerely trying to rid the country of the menace of terrorism. Coming back to his pledge to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law it is not being suggested that any bar be placed against a COAS occasionally pronouncing such a pledge. However, in view of the institution’s performance in the recent past on this twin- front which is too fresh in the nation’s memory one is constraint to set the pronouncement against the ruling of the 5-member Supreme Court bench disqualifying an elected Prime Minister declaring him to be neither ‘Sadiq’ and nor ‘Ameen’ under relevant Constitutional clauses. Was General Ziaul Haq Sadiq and Ameen? Had he been put to the test he would have failed miserably. For having promised to hold elections within 90 days — he ruled the country for 11 years Of course there appears not the remotest hint that the COAS or his institution had anything to do with this ruling, though the six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) had included one serving Brigadier each from the ISI and the MI. But here is what makes one take a second look at the situation without meaning to doubt the integrity of either the superior judiciary or the institution that the COAS heads: Former COAS General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf has claimed in a recent TV interview that former COAS General (Retd) Raheel Sharif had intervened to ‘reduce’ pressure on the judiciary that had helped him get out of the country. One also recalls that the Constitutional clauses (62 & 63)that were invoked by the five-member Supreme Court bench to disqualify an elected PM were not voted into the Constitution by an elected Parliament but were inserted in the book by a military dictator to bar from parliament all those whose ‘Qibla’ he had deduced to be pointing in the wrong direction. Was General Ziaul Haq himself ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’? Well he would have miserably failed the test because after promising to hold elections within 90 days and that too in Islam’s holiest place — Khana-i-Kaaba — the bounder ruled the country for 11 long years and also had had his hand- picked Supreme Court pass death sentence against an elected Prime Minister on cooked up charges of murder and then hanged him without showing an iotaof remorse. One also does not feel all that comfortable when the COAS Gen Bajwa suddenly changes with the change of the PM the position of his chair from across the desk to the PM’s right side like the position that the former COAS Gen (Retd) Raheel Sharif used to occupy when calling on the PM. And one cannot also ignore the suspicion expressed by many of Nawaz Sharif’s genuine supporters that he was not disqualified for violating democratic norms or even for allegedly indulging in corruption but because of his passion to establish lasting peace with India and also to appease the quarters that did not like Nawaz naming Quaid-i-Azam University’s Physics department after Dr Abdus Salam, honouring the two-time Oscar winner Sharmeen Obaid by holding a reception for her in the PM House and perhaps also for delivering a progressive and inclusive message to minorities on the occasion of Holi celebrations in May this year. His message on the occasion was “no one can force others to adopt a certain religion. Pakistan was not made so one religion can dominate over others.” However, most think it was essentially the Dawnleaks that had cooked his goose as the revelations had caused immense embarrassment to the institution. Those who regard the institution above reproach had equated the leaks to blasphemy. Not that what the Dawnleaks revealed was not already in public knowledge from here to Timbuktu. But what had supposed to have galled the institution was the official certification of the truth. And what about all those judges who took oath on the Provisional Constitutional Orders (PCOs) including Justice Munir who had upheld dissolution of the 1956 House on a mere technicality and those Government Attorneys who introduced the infamous doctrine of necessity? And what about the Supreme Court bench which had included former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhary as well that gave Musharraf three years to rule as he saw fit even allowing him to amend the Constitution as he willed? And what about the officers mentioned in Hamoodur Rehman Commission, the Ojhari camp Commission, the Abbottabad Commission and those mentioned in the Asghar Khan case? To cut a long story of uncalled for infringements of Constitution and the rule of law short one would like to join PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar in his demand that Parliament 1. Define the terms ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ and bring under their purview judges and generals as well; 2. legislate for across the board accountability of all the high and mighty regardless of whether they were elected representatives, judges or generals; 3. Ensure that provisions of Article 10-A are not contravened by the use of Article 184 (3) in which there is no appeal and; 4. Proceed to create a constitutional court as envisaged in the Charter of Democracy. The suggestion that an intra-institutional dialogue be held among the military, judiciary, parliament and the executive, on the face of it, sounds well-meaning and timely but the idea seems essentially oxymoronic because the very institution that has over the years forcibly conquered a paramount position in the country’s political scheme of things is expected to willingly join a dialogue that is inherently aimed at relegating it to its constitutional position. Also a judiciary with a self-image of being genuinely independent would not like to be associated with any dialogue that is based on the presumption that it is functioning either under the influence of the military or considers itself to be above parliament. The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. He served as the Executive Editor of Express Tribune until 2014 Published in Daily Times, August 18th 2017.