Military ruler General Ziaul Haq departed this world more than 26 years ago, but that supreme hypocrite's ghost continues to haunt almost every sphere of our national life. Using religion to seek validation of his power grab, he sowed seeds of so many problems this society faces today, obvious among them militancy, sectarian terrorism, religious intolerance, and decline of educational standards. To keep his opponents out of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) he also inserted Articles 62 and 63 in the Constitution, laying down qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament.
The Parliament has since made several constitutional amendments, including the much-celebrated 18th Amendment passed unanimously by the two houses of Parliament after months of exhaustive deliberation. But the representatives of all parties, including secular ANP and MQM, left these articles untouched, apparently, out of fear of self-righteous religious parties leaders and/or to make a show of their own false piety. As long as these provisions remained somebody, sometime was going to invoke them. That time has come. Having failed to secure Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's resignation through street agitation the PTI and PML-Q representatives have approached the apex court, using an alleged false statement by Sharif to seek his disqualification under Article 62- 1(f) that says a person shall be disqualified to be member of Parliament unless "he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law." Conceding that the words sagacious and ameen remain to be defined, the court has observed it would interpret these articles irrespective of the concern whether "one member goes home or half of the Parliament." Indeed, the Supreme Court is the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, and hence the final arbiter of cases involving constitutional issues.
The court's role is to interpret the Constitution as it is; the Parliament can amend it whenever need be. There are several things in the said articles that need to be eliminated. At least three issues stand out. Under Article 62-1 (e) the qualification standard requires that a person "has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins." (Mercifully, these qualifications are not applicable to non-Muslims though they too "shall have good moral reputation." It is not known, however, who will judge the moral reputation and how). As a consequence of this provision, returning officers sit on judgement on other people's faith. Some of them have been using these provisions to raise absurd objections, even issuing unsolicited advice on personal matters. Candidates are asked to recite verses from the holy Quran; those who can't are supposed to be bad Muslims and therefore fit for disqualification. Surely, a person can be a good practising Muslim who reads the Quran as a book of guidance without memorising the verses.
Then there is clause g of Article 62, under which a person can qualify unless "he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan." As for the 'integrity' issue which basically questions citizens loyalty, it is not difficult to point an accusatory finger at people who happen to stand on the wrong side of the existing order. Driven by a deep sense of deprivation of their political and economic rights the Baloch people have periodically been rebelling against the federation. The present Chief Minister of Balochistan, Dr Abdul Malik, is a self-confessed former rebel. As per Article 62 he deserves to be disqualified. But would anyone in their right mind suggest doing that? It is also worthwhile to recall that back in 1974 the late Wali Khan, chief of the ANP (at the time heading ANP's predecessor NAP) was arrested along with senior party colleagues and tried, and his party banned, by the Bhutto government on charges of indulging in anti-state activities at the Afghan government's instigation. He was also accused of having received Rs 20 million from the Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi through an agent. Freed by the Zia government, he went on to lead the ANP and contest elections as long as he lived. At present, the Balochistan government is trying, backed by the Prime Minister, to negotiate with leaders of the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan to bring them back into the mainstream. According to this article, it is an impermissible move, but in reality it is vital for preserving the integrity of Pakistan.
As for the condition of not working against the ideology of Pakistan, it militates against this country's founding ideals. It is worthwhile to remember the founders never mentioned the term 'Ideology of Pakistan'. Ironically enough, "Ideology of Pakistan' was first enunciated by Major General Sheri Ali Khan (Retd), information minister under military dictator General Yahya Khan, a notorious drinker and womanizer. Father of the Nation Mohammad Ali Jinnah is on record to have said that Pakistan will not be a theocratic state. In his much-quoted but ignored - by the ruling elites - speech he made before the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah while laying down founding ideals of the new state averred, "you may belong to any religion or cast or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the State." Sadly for this Muslim homeland - as opposed to an Islamic state - he struggled for in the face of vehement opposition from religious parties, including Jamaat-i-Islami and JUI (then Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind) - on the grounds that Islam cannot be confined within the boundaries of a nation-state - it has gradually become the reverse picture of Jinnah's vision.
Now that some of these issues have come up for interpretation before the Supreme Court, it is time for the legislators to revisit all provisions of Articles 62 and 63 and remove the military dictator's distortions of history and other ill-intentioned qualification/disqualification conditions he put in the Constitution. The mainstream parties in Parliament must take courage in both hands and exorcise the Constitution of Zia's ghost.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.