Daily Times

Are politicians’ personal lives really personal? Julius Caesar the greatest politician from antiquity was not exempt from public attacks on his personal life. His love life was a subject of many a conversation in Rome. His divorce with Pompeia gave rise to the oft-used expression “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. This was in Rome where the idea of sexuality was certainly not as rigid as it was to become later in Western civilization, and indeed Muslim civilization. The modern day Rome i.e. the US saw a liberal President like Bill Clinton vociferously deny charges of adultery, even when there is no law against it. This was because he feared that these charges would undermine his clout. Ultimately, it was for his lie that he was almost impeached. Even today, President Trump, never one to back down, is facing the Stormy Daniels crisis with the indefatigable litigator Michael Avenatti Esq. in hot pursuit. Earlier scandals in American history included the brief but torrid affair between Alexander Hamilton and Mary Reynolds, which ended the chances of this most promising of founding fathers to become the President of the US. Thomas Jefferson’s affair with his slave Sally is also a well known subject in American history.

In the subcontinent, Gandhi — who was anointed Mahatma or the Great Soul — was not spared for his experiments sleeping naked with young female protégés to control his sexual urges. Pandit Nehru’s sexual escapades were the stuff of legend, though he was lucky to have as his main rival a gentleman in Mr Jinnah, who refused to capitalise on Nehru’s alleged relationship with Lady Mountbatten. Indira’s marriage to Feroze Gandhi was another major scandal which Nehru had to grapple with. Mr Jinnah himself, the Quaid-e-Azam, was called Kafir-e-Azam because he had married Ruttie Petit, a Parsi socialite known for wearing clothes scandalous even by modern standards. This was despite the fact that Ruttie had nominally converted to Islam as a legal formality to maintain Mr Jinnah’s eligibility to run on a Muslim seat in the separate electorate system. Throughout his political career, Jinnah’s dietary habits would continue to be questioned by orthodox Muslims as well as his supposedly secular opponents in the Congress. Later the Quaid-e-Azam would be taunted for his daughter’s decision to marry outside the faith, even though he had himself disapproved of the union. Both Bacha Khan and his brother Dr Khan Sahib faced similar taunts from the more conservative Pakhtuns for the marriage of Dr Khan Sahib’s daughter to a Christian pilot. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s personal life was also subject of much gossip, including his famous affair with Husna Shaikh. Bhutto was not the kind to back down. He did what Kemal Ataturk, one of his heroes, had done 40 years earlier. As the President of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk had begun drinking and partying openly, declaring that unlike the Sultans he was not a hypocrite and that Ottomans drank in private, which they did. Bhutto declared “yes I drink, but at least I don’t drink the blood of the poor”, taking aim at the rich capitalists who he was trying to destroy through his disastrous nationalisation policy.

If PTI is going to drag personal issues into the political sphere, all bets are off and the gloves come off from all sides

In short, the personal lives of politicians have never really been personal. In Pakistan however, the issue is more than just reputation vis-à-vis the voters. Pakistani voters have historically never really cared much for the personal lives of their leaders. Despite propaganda against our most popular leaders, Mr Jinnah, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, people still gave them their mandate and rejected at the polls those pious men in flowing beards who railed against them.

The issue in Pakistan is a constitutional and legal one, especially after the mutilations visited upon the 1973 Constitution by General Ziaul Haq. Parliamentarians or candidates who would be parliamentarians and are also Muslims would be subject to Article 62(1)d and 62(1)e. These are as under:

(d)          he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;

(e)          he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins;

These clauses are a minefield as Justice Qazi Faez Isa so rightly pointed in his dissenting judgment in the Shaikh Rasheed case. This door should never have been opened. MQM tried to do this when it brought the issue up against Imran Khan about a decade ago but failed. Article 62 was brought to the fore again through Imran Khan’s petition against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Ultimately the court disqualified Nawaz Sharif under 62(1)f which speaks of the requirement of a legislator to be sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ‘Ameen’. The door was left wide open though.

Now PTI activists and Imran Khan cry foul that their leader’s personal life is being made an issue. It is certainly not an election issue but a purely legal one. As much as one dislikes these spurious clauses — which have no business as qualification clauses especially given that there should be no discrimination between Muslim and Non-Muslim legislators — the fact is that these clauses are part of the Constitution and despite the attendant risks, it was Imran Khan who insisted on bringing them into play. How can he now argue that his personal life should be immune?

Imran Khan inspired a generation of Pakistanis in the 1980s and 1990s with his incredible cricketing career. Many of us who grew up then worshipped him as a Greek god and followed his every move. That he has had a colourful personal life is no secret. The goings on in Bani Gala are well known to anyone even slightly connected to the social networks of Islamabad and Lahore. What was leaked as purportedly Reham Khan’s book does not even give a tenth of the real story. In particular when we talk of major sins under Article 62(1)e of the Constitution i.e. Gunah-e-Kabira, one can safely say that the PTI chairman seems to have allegedly ticked off the entire list. Personally, it does not matter to me because in 2013, despite this reputation, I did not hesitate for a minute while casting my vote for Imran Khan himself in NA-122. This time it is different. PTI stoked the fire last year by raising the Khatme-Nabuwat issue again. Almost all candidates of PTI, including people like Yasmin Rashid who should have known better, seem to be using the same slogan and appropriating Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of Salman Taseer Shaheed, for their cause. If PTI is going to drag personal issues into the political sphere, all bets are off and the gloves come off from all sides. The Constitution cannot be applied selectively. Remember, according to the Supreme Court the disqualification under Article 62 is permanent, lifelong and irrevocable.

There is still time for Imran Khan to take a principled stance. He must openly distance himself from the anti-minority propaganda carried out by his party and the hate speech being spewed by his cult following and declare personal life, like personal beliefs are not public. Otherwise it seems that his end in politics is going to be very similar to the fate of one Rajneesh Osho and his cult of Rajneeshis in the US. In comparison, Imran Khan is a relatively small fish to fry.

The writer is a practising lawyer and a Visiting Fellow at Harvard Law School in Cambridge MA, USA. He blogs at http://globallegalforum.blogspot.com and his twitter handle is @therealylh

Published in Daily Times, June 25^th 2018.