Daily Times

The process of evolution is not sparing Pakistan. In this month of November, a few new socio-political patterns have emerged, which presage a different future for the country. First, the notorious mullah-military alliance has suffered a historic setback. Syed Munawwar Hasan, the amir (head) of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), avoided publicly using the word ‘martyr’ (or shaheed) for those military men who had laid down their lives in the ongoing war on terror. The predicate was that it was not Pakistan’s war but the US’s war that the Pakistani military was fighting. Hence, the deceased military men did not qualify for any religious gratitude. The implied message was that the word ‘terrorist’ was a misnomer for those who had carried out attacks on civilians and the military. Perhaps those were mujahideen fighting for a sacred religious cause. On the other hand, the JI’s amir declared Hakeemullah Mehsud a martyr, as he was killed by a missile launched from a drone used by US forces. The positive in the JI’s narrative is that the JI has spoken its mind publicly. The negative in the narrative is that it has discredited the efforts of the military and, by extension, the civilian armed forces. Despite an earnest, explicit and direct request from Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), the JI’s amir has not taken his words back. To many, this is a parting of the ways, at least as far as the ongoing war on terror is concerned. In this way, the JI has aired the ostensible message that it is not siding with the military but with the Taliban (who are launching attacks here and there). The implications of this stance for Pakistan are numerous and are open to evaluation.

Secondly, a military dictator is going to be held accountable for his anti-constitutional deeds. General (retired) Pervez Musharraf will be tried for abrogating the constitution on November 3, 2007. Though a section of society is demanding accountability for all those military dictators who have abrogated constitutions of the past, to hold such a big and multilayer enquiry followed by a trial is a non-starter. The importance of this particular unconstitutional act by Musharraf is that it could not be sanctified by parliament through any constitutional amendment. This is an unusual situation: a military dictator violated the constitution and left his act constitutionally unprotected. On the one hand, it was an act of brashness by Musharraf to leave his unlawful act unguarded while, on the other hand, it was an act of meekness by the civilians not to try Musharraf for that. The incumbent government has decided to shuffle the order and assert civilian supremacy.

For democratic circles in the country, this is a good omen. In the past, military dictators would provide a constitutional cover to their acts through a handpicked parliament but Musharraf did not (or could not) do that. That is why Article six is an exact match for the brazenness Musharraf showed towards the constitution. In this episode lies a historic opportunity with the democratic sections of society to close the chapter of martial laws (whether major or mini) once and for all. The point is simple: if the military does not follow the dictates of the constitution, the political governments cannot ask insurgents and separatists to respect the constitution. Similarly, if a military general cannot be held accountable for his misdeeds, politicians can also not be held to account for their misdemeanors in any court of law.

Third, the menace of terrorism will be checked. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has announced that the government will soon introduce legislation to allow the judges of anti-terrorism courts to hide their faces and identities in various ways while hearing and deciding cases of terrorism. Furthermore, these cases will be decided within 14 days. Terrorism has ravaged society and has been spawning in several forms. It has blighted the ethnic and sectarian domains. Unless dealt with with an iron hand, the trend of terrorism is irreversible. The introduction of anti-terrorism courts in 1997 (through the Anti-Terrorist Act, which was later improved in 1998 through a presidential ordinance to be applicable to the whole country) was a testament to the proportions terrorism had attained over years, especially since the 1980s. In response to that measure, the terrorists adopted a new way to deal with the situation: terrorists who were implicated in cases falling under the definition of ‘terrorism’ intimidated and, in certain instances, attacked and killed the judges of anti-terrorist courts.

Consequently, terrorism-related cases remained undecided and kept piling up in the courts. In this way, the mode of tackling terrorism through anti-terrorism courts failed to produce the desired results. The courts became virtually non-functional. Intimidation and killing of witnesses was the second aspect of the matter, which made the whole idea of anti-terrorist courts ineffectual. A law related to the protection of witnesses has already been introduced in Sindh through its provincial Assembly in September this year. Witnesses can also hide their identities by various means, including the wearing of masks and changing their appearance. No doubt, there is a need to improve the efficiency of the law enforcement agencies to tackle terrorism on a day-to-day basis. There is an equal need to enhance the quantum of decisions by the anti-terrorism courts. The incumbent government has made a move in the right direction and it may help create deterrence against terrorism, though there is a need to adopt the witness protection act at the federal government level as well.

In short, all three types of changes indicate that Pakistan is heading for a change in its social and political deportment. Secondly, these changes indicate that Pakistan is not only setting its basics right but also devising new ways to wrestle with new sorts of problems. These changes indicate that Pakistan is maturing socially and politically.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com