Maulvi Rafiq Tarar, an erstwhile jurist, exalted to be the president of the republic by Mian Nawaz Sharif during the days when his Abbaji’s shariah-soaked will ruled the roost, has recently requested the Lahore High Court (LHC) to excise the title ‘president’ affixed to General Pervez Musharraf’s name from all official records. This is really an extraordinary, exciting and significant petition, which, if granted by the honourable court, could alter the entire perception and high-sounding epithets and appellations of the mighty army rulers and the courtiers and constellations created by them. One wonders what the actual court verdict would be because the ordinary law-abiding commoners like this scribe are not required to comment or theorise on court cases. This is a rare prerogative reserved for and practised only by a very special media sect spearheading the legal assault against the elected federal authorities. Yet, given the rampant spate of the sagacity and independence of our superior judiciary, even a street simpleton can surmise any of the three possible outcomes. The court can stall any actual progress or verdict on the case by deferring and re-deferring its hearing to seek further record and evidence and the case thus may slide into the archives of oblivion, forgotten for decades. Its eventual impact on the state, status and nomenclature of these rulers and their collaborators would consequently also remain unchanged. Its rejection would similarly have little practical result except for the dilemma that Mush, despite being an usurper, would be free to flaunt his feathers sparkling with a new seal of sanctification by the superior courts. The third likely outcome, i.e. expunging the word ‘president’ from his name, of course, would spawn an entire new challenge to change not only his title but also to seek an entire new innovative and legally and ethically precise nomenclature for the state institutions and the incumbents who served under him. This nomenclature would evidently have to be quite explicit, extensive and effective to rechristen even the earlier dictators and their deputies and deacons. This would also have to be quite distinct and definitive so as not to be confused with the genuine democratic institutions and their echelons. The courts themselves, for instance, would be forced to find a new moniker for them. The names like the High and Supreme Courts, for example, are reserved for the institutions created under the constitution by the duly elected authorities. The courts that worked under the dictators and bestowed their seal of approval on them obviously cannot claim the same sobriquet. The buck unfortunately does not merely stop at the courts. The reverend lords hearing the case perhaps may be wondering that if Mush were stripped of his title then what would happen to the lords elevated and appointed by him. An illegitimate ruler can, by no stretch of imagination or jugglery, create a legitimate court or lords. The readers would perhaps shudder at the long list of the superior judges created by Mush and other dictators. A cursory look at the present constellation of 17 lords in the apex court, for instance, would spill the beans. The chief justice, hailed as the lord saviour of the present democratic span by some circles, was ironically inducted as an assistant advocate general during the Zia dictatorship and ordained chief justice by Mush. Adding more complications to the legal maze, the Supreme Court in its judgement in July also spurned the role of the present democratic dispensation in restoring the present judiciary, pronouncing the premier’s proclamation for its restoration as redundant and asserting that actually there never had been any interregnum in its existence and functioning. Translated into simpler parlance, it means that the judges have continued their positions ever since they had been appointed by Mush. New appellations thus would have to be coined for the lords not elevated or approved by a genuinely accepted democratic government. The situation for the super clan of our colossus army establishment would be no different, as they also, despite their supra-constitutional authority, need a nominal legal edict from a constitutionally bona fide supreme commander. Their selections, postings and promotion procedures are routinely carried out by the GHQ without any active involvement of the government. Any bidding by the civilian bosses is particularly resented. The episode of elevation of General Ziauddin by Nawaz is an irrefutable evidence of the futility of the premier’s will. General Kayani continues for another term despite the load of legal constraints and precedents piled up by the critics. Still, some sensitive slots need a formal nod because parliament happens to be the sole paymaster ever since the Magna Carta days. So the moment the legal rug is pulled from under Mush’s feet, his protégés and appointees for over a decade would evidently have nowhere to stand but to seek some new props. The case of the ministers is even more mindboggling as they involve a far bigger breed of federal and provincial incumbents, including the premiers and chief ministers. Some of them, like Shujaat, had a mere transient span. The plight of the parliamentarians elected during a fair election conducted by a constitutionally valid authority versus the ones manoeuvred or decreed by the dictators poses an even more ponderous task. A large National Nomenclature Commission comprising the legislators, jurists and generals would be evidently required to resolve these historic contradictions. Yet some skeletal suggestions pending its formation may be in order. The ministers serving under Mush and other dictators may be called minister to martial maw or martial ministers or martial munshis (clerks) to make the title even more factual and illustrative because these ministers actually lacked any real power or authority. The prime ministers like Jamali or Shaukat Aziz similarly may be called meer martial munshis (MMM) and the title of chief minister should be accordingly altered to the chief martial munshis (CMM). The superior courts cooperating with and functioning under the dictators may likewise be called martial high courts and the martial supreme court. The judges serving in them for consistency ought to be named as the martial justice and martial chief justice. Carrying the concept to the army cadres installed by the dictators, the prefix ‘martial’ may be tagged to their titles. Irrespective of the final consensus form of the nomenclature, a clear distinction between the echelons who submitted and served and those who defied the dictatorship is needed for posterity and a proper historical record. The writer is an academic and freelance columnist. He can be reached at habibpu@yahoo.com