 |
| Echoes of April 4: Column by Asma Shirazi |
Look at the oppression of history, it repeats itself again and again and pronounces its verdict. The verdict of history is that the truth is still alive today, the oppression of the present is the truth of the past and the testimony of the future. A testimony that echoes through the centuries.
Today is the fourth of April. The day when the democrats lament and the Rawalpindi court becomes the killing ground of the elected Prime Minister. This is the day when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto ascended the throne. People's leaders were killed and the creator of the constitution became the leader. Decades have passed, but the echo of this judicial murder is still echoing in the halls of hearing and justice.
Bhutto is still standing in the court of justice, but Munsif does not dare to turn a blind eye to the truth. The star of justice has become a testimony in the death chamber, but the irony is that even after four decades, Bhutto's judicial killing has not received a certificate of justice in any way and anywhere.
April 4 has become a metaphor for civilian supremacy and a stain on the forehead of history that needs to be washed away. It is another April 4th in the dark and this time the Constitution is in the dock, the question of dictatorship versus fascism and democracy versus judicial dictatorship is raising its head again.
Time has changed, one prime minister was dethroned by the court while the other was subjected to 'selective justice'. How Nawaz Sharif's mega-corruption in the Panama case became the cause of disqualification for Iqama, the testimonies of history are now coming to light while the judiciary is not in any quest to wash the stains on its feet.
But the situation is different now. The scattered testimonies of the present time cannot escape from the memory in any case. The events are being preserved with the same continuity with which they are changing. Circumstantial coercion exists, but the principle of future effect also applies.
Look at the current constitutional crisis, the matter started with the postponement of the provincial elections and now there is a fear of reaching a constitutional deadlock. Ironically, the CCPO Ghulam Mehmood Dogar exchange case itself, the self-notice, is about to swallow administrative and political authority.
Who will deny that it is essential to ensure the holding of the assemblies in the ninety days mentioned in the constitution, where this is the case, the question will also be asked whether it is necessary to read this provision in connection with transparent elections. was not?
The question is also that the argument of 'minimum time' beyond ninety days is present in which provision of the constitution? Elections have to be held either in ninety days or within ninety days. The minimum time before this should be considered history or the rewriting of the constitution?
The question is also why the objection to the reasons for the dissolution of the assembly by Justice Athar Manullah and Mansoor Ali Shah was not considered important. If it is not determined that under what circumstances the dissolution of the assembly took place, then the brutal clause of fifty-eight to B of dissolution of the elected assembly will not be re-enforceable without writing?
The question is also whether the main reason for the existence of this crisis is not the Supreme Court's interpretation of the sixty-three A, which not only made no-confidence in the Constitution unworkable but considered it a rewriting of the Constitution.
The question is also why such an important issue was not taken to the full court in the journey from nine judges to three judges?
And it would have been good if the Supreme Court had seated the senior judges under one roof in the wider interest of the nation before the political parties were seated at the negotiation table and issued the constitutional demand for elections to two assemblies with a majority decision.
However, it has yet to be decided in the court of history, who and when protected certain interests under the guise of the constitution?
The country is suffering from the economic crisis and inflation, all the pillars of the state are in ruins, environmental change is more than an enemy, and the fear of food crisis is increasing, in such a situation, every organization needs collective wisdom and decisions. While division after division is giving rise to hatred and selfishness.
The constitution that binds everyone is getting divided, who is going to contain this crisis, if the constitution is ineffective, the loss will be to the state.
Today is April 4 again and there is no one else in the dock but the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court also needs collective wisdom, otherwise, dictatorship is the system of an individual which can happen anywhere and in any form and this is also against the Constitution.