Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada is no more, and we are not quite sure how to respond to this news. Reading the few obituaries — essentially condensed versions of his resume — one could miss the most salient point about his life’s work ie a life spent in the service of autocracy and despotism.
The universal advice that one is not under an oath to speak at a funeral coupled with our “eastern sense” of modesty results in obituaries that just list cities of birth, education degrees, and official appointments with dates — a sloppy Wikipedia page, if you will. Mr Pirzada has the (dis)honour of being the counsel-in-chief to all military dictators in Pakistan to date — Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf. Generally, lawyers are not to be judged for their clients, however, four despots is four too many and clearly a habit. If one drops the antiquated notion of the practice of law being a calling and accept it as a mere “vocation/profession”, even then Mr Pirzada’s career is an outlier and “being a mercenary,” still a separate category. He had just a brief moment of being on the other side as amicus curiae (friend of the court) against a defeated Yahya Khan being declared a ‘usurper’ post facto.
His claims of being Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s secretary and being told by Mr. Jinnah to pursue law have always been disputed, with even his friends claiming his picture with Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Gandhi as a fake. However, the excellent legal skill and ability of Mr Pirzada has never been under question, admittedly his phenomenal legal success is slightly dampened by the fact that in his most notable cases his clients were also the most powerful men in the country. One would imagine doing advocacy with a baton waving General standing at back might be marginally easier, at least easier than being on the other side.
His first real benefactor, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, under whom Mr. Pirzada served as an attorney general and foreign minister wrote about him in his diary on August 31, 1967: “He is on the run in foreign countries most of the time and often purposelessly, is very suspicious by nature, has hardly any communication with the staff, chases small things most of the time and is frightened of taking a definite stand on any issue. There is also some suspicion that he is not above telling a lie. So I am in a fix as to what to do with him.”
“Frightened of taking a definite stand on any issue,” stands out since Mr Pirzada’s was always definite in a picking a side, the same side. However, he always explained it as being a professional lawyer contesting cases which come his way. For a professional lawyer, he displayed scant regard for the Constitution — “abrogating it”, “holding it in abeyance”, and getting the phrase “to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution” omitted from the oath of judges after a military takeover.
While being an extremely skilled attorney, Mr Pirzada really excelled at manipulation, wheeling and dealing, and subverting the Constitution. The path he chose required a lot of ability, equanimity of temperament, and an ever flexible conscience. He was by no means alone in desiring this path; to our misfortune, he was only the best at pursuing it. Can he at least partially be blamed for the havoc that was wreaked by those he helped in power? Would the Generals have not found hundreds of willing and several able accomplices to do what Mr Pirzada did, had he not volunteered himself or refused? The answer to both questions is yes. But to absolve Mr Pirzada from culpability for the murder, mayhem, and injustices caused by Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf would be to make the concept of moral responsibility completely hollow.
Mr Pirzada’s life’s work has made Pakistani governments weaker and left the country poorer. To whitewash or dignify his career is simply wrong, he should be remembered for the life he chose and lived
One is tempted to quote Hunter S. Thompson’s reference to evil in his scathing obituary of Richard Nixon. “{Nixon was} evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it.” However, that would be inaccurate and unfair description for Mr Pirzada, “being evil” seems too much of an ideological commitment for him; he was “a moral vacuum,” and “a bureaucrat”. He was more Henry Kissinger than Nixon. Mr Pirzada’s brilliance does not give him a free pass, rather makes his contribution far more damaging than the hordes of sycophants willing to lend mediocre services to dictatorships.
After Mr Pirzada’s stint as the Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Countries, his friend, the late great Ardeshir Cowasjee, had dubbed him the “jadugar of Jeddah” (in the words of Cowasjee, “the saala likes the title”). Mr Pirzada reportedly once told Cowasjee, “Accept me as I am with warts, blemishes, briefcases, and all. If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.” Even if this were true, this is wrong and Mr Pirzada’s life’s work sadly has made Pakistani governments weaker and corrupter and left the country poorer. To whitewash or dignify Mr Pirzada’s career is simply wrong, he should be remembered for the life he chose and lived.
So long, counsellor.
The writer is a lawyer and the country representative for Human Rights Watch (HRW). The views expressed are his own