Chief Justice Should Resign

There is a reason why the figure of Justice is depicted as she is, holding a set of scales, a sword, and her eyes covered by a blindfold. The scales suspended from her right hand represent the relative strength of a case’s arguments, for and against. The double-edged sword symbolises the power of Reason and Justice. The blindfold is to spare her eyes from witnessing the trauma of what happens in her name in our Pakistani courtrooms.

The Chief Justice of our Supreme Court is being pilloried for the second time in his judicial career. The last time he stood his ground by refusing to resign. He became a cause célèbre and the sound-bite darling of the media. Today, he is again being hounded but this time for a very different reason.

His son is alleged to have taken more than 30 crores from Bahria Town’s Malik Riaz and is not outrightly denying this fact. If the son Dr Arslan has taken the money and his trips to Monte Carlo and London were sponsored by Malik Riaz there is absolutely no excuse for such a behavior and he along with Malik Riaz should be sent to the prison for indulging in corruption.

Jurisprudence has evolved over the millennia to protect the rights of man from the wrongdoing of fellow man.

It does not however offer equivalent protection to those who have been appointed to adjudicate. Their courtroom is the well of public opinion, their jury the press.

It is clear that we Pakistanis have reached a depth of insensitivity where pain knows no limits. We refuse to improve, to stand above ourselves, preferring instead to pull down those who presume to rise above us. Those who could stand outside the rest of us have demonstrated that detachment by migrating. Those who have remained in the country do so either out of necessity or out of a belief in an afterlife here on earth. There is no evidence to support that faith.

It is unlikely that the Chief Justice did not know about his son taking the money. It goes to his credit that he may not have been influenced by it but the fact that the son was taking money from Malik Riaz and perhaps from some other quarters as well like Mobilink and Ufone goes to show that corruption was taking place right under the Chief Justice’s nose. It is hard to believe that such corruption was taking place and he did not know about it.

How could one argue that the Chief Justice did not know about Dr Arslan taking money and then going on foreign trips and staying in expensive hotels, sometimes along with his mother?

If the Chief Justice did not know about it then it would be negligence on his part. He is entrusted with controlling corruption nationally by dispensing justice and how can he do justice and ascertain its presence if he cannot do it within the family.

Chief Justice’ sincerity to the nation and in opposing corruption cannot be doubted but he should accept the moral responsibility by resigning.

 

Looking back at the Lawyers’ Movement

Did the movement bring a fundamental change in the state and the society and the relationship between the two?

by Ayesha Siddiqa

The protests, rallies and demonstrations by the legal community from 2007 to 2009 took everyone in and outside Pakistan by surprise. People were impressed with the perseverance of the lawyer’s from around the country in the face of a military dictator and in forcing a political government to ensure that the chief justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was restored. However, it is worth asking whether the movement brought some fundamental change in the state and society and the relationship between the two?

The above question cannot be answered without retrospectively, though briefly, looking at this event in history that got labeled as a movement. There are scholars who did not consider this as a movement even then. It did not qualify as a movement, perhaps, in comparison to what Pakistan witnessed during the late 1960s when the under-privileged people from all walks of life came together to protest Ayub Khan’s military dictatorship. The movement of the 1960s included the farm labor, factory worker, students, and people like the small-time chaiwala who were willing to sacrifice their meager earnings for long-term political benefits.

On the other hand, the political action spearheaded by the legal community, in which others such as the media, civil society and ex-servicemen and some other groups took part, had an urban and middle class character. A lot of them such as some members of the ex-servicemen association had immense dislike for Musharraf (but not necessarily the military). This was then an event where personal interests and biases got compounded with a cause.
The real dispossessed Pakistani did not come out on the streets for two reasons. First, the lawyer’s protest did not until the very end establish any link between security of the judiciary and empowerment of the legal community, and socioeconomic uplift in the country. The economic explanation for a free and fair judiciary was a point raised in Aitzaz Ahsan’s speech at the end of the long march but it had the impact of being too little too late. Second, the legal community failed to convince the general public of their earnestness to improve the fate of the common man who sees that lawyers and the judicial system as much a part of overall elite exploitation. A visit to the katchaihrey in any big or small town bears witness to the might of a system that exploits people. The black coats were not able to distance themselves from the image of the exploiter that they become in their own sphere.

Thus, the entire notion of the lawyer’s protest representing the strengthening of the society versus the state requires a serious reassessment. Surely, the idea is not to take away the achievements of that time as it was the first fairly massive right-wing movement after the PNA movement against Bhutto in the late 1970s. The decade of the 70s marks not only the relative and systematic weakening of the left in Pakistan but also the gradual strengthening of the right-wing. The bulk of the legal community, the mainstream media and key civil society groups may have differing views on the use of religious ideology in state politics, but these are fairly centrist or right of center forces. An urban-middle class setting means a natural inclination towards the state as a symbol of power that must be controlled for furthering of personal interests. The legal community, in any case, as is very obvious from Stanley Kochanek’s work on power groups in Pakistan, is inclined towards the establishment from the early years after independence.

It can be concluded from the socio-political nature of the legal community and its behavior after the end of the 2007-2009 protest that a strengthening of the system of justice for the benefit of the common man was certainly not the core purpose. It was a means to an end denoted by the empowerment of the legal community, building up of its nuisance value and membership as a secondary partner of the powerful establishment. The lawyers in general did not demonstrate a willingness to apply the rule of law principle to themselves. For instance, in one particular case in which a lawyer tortured his 12 years old Christian house maid to death, the lawyers in general were forced not to represent the victim’s family. Similarly, lawyers resorted to physical abuse of those with opposing views and gross misconduct in the premises of the superior courts. Some of the starts of the protest also benefited by building up their personal fortunes as people were attracted to them due to their close connection with the chief justice during the lawyer’s movement. Thus, perceptions built during the protests were of great value.

The legal community-media partnership, in fact, worked out to be a great combination that created new heroes and pitched the two communities as ultimate beneficiaries of the political struggle. This is not to suggest that the struggle did not bring any change in the country. However, it did not necessarily denote a transformation of the mindset and change the overall system of governance as there was hardly any introspection by the legal community of its attitudes.

Referring to the ideological bent of the protest, it indicated a further step towards strengthening of the right wing. As a matter of fact, some of the lawyer’s used their newly acquired nuisance value to exhibit their ideological power as was obvious from the trial of Mumtaz Qadri for the murder of Salmaan Taseer. The middle class traders from Islamabad and Rawalpindi, who were also on the forefront during the lawyer’s protest, were there on Qadri’s side as well along with hundreds of lawyers.

Religiosity and militant-nationalism are two of the key traits that have evolved amongst Pakistan’s middle class in the past couple of decades. This is laced with authoritarian tendencies and inclination towards strengthening of kleptocracy. As the dust settles on the ‘lawyer’s movement’ we will realize that it ultimately resulted in further solidification of the establishment. The military, for one, is no less out of business than it was before November 2007.

Ayaz Amir Lashes Out At the NGOs

Will ‘civil society’ please take a rest?
by Ayaz Amir 

The lawyers’ movement fostered many illusions, none more powerful than the myth that there was something called civil society in Pakistan, good people out to do good and inspired by the best of intentions. Retired bureaucrats, professors of academia in search of a cause, society girls and begums, and frustrated politicians – a politician who fails to get elected or who has nowhere to get elected from is a study in frustration – became the standard bearers of civil society.

The media which had also come into its own thanks to Musharraf’s TV-proliferation policies – TV anchors, otherwise champions of revisionist history, must never forget their debt to Musharraf – skated over the miniscule numbers of civil society and glorified its image. Civil society became a catchphrase. Everyone was using it. If you were stumped for an answer you mumbled the words civil society and tried to look profound. It was surprising how often the trick worked.

NGOs once upon a time had started saying that they could manage things better than the government. The leading knights and ladies of civil society started suggesting that whereas the political class had failed the nation, they along with lawyers, the media and a rejuvenated judiciary would help fix the nation’s problems.

All these four classes – media, lawyers, judges and civil society – made common cause with each other, feeding upon each other’s prejudices, reinforcing each other’s arrogance. They lived in a world of make-believe. The world of reality was kept firmly at a distance.
Three years down the line we are in a position to judge the consequences of that strange and heady mood. The media is on a perpetual warpath, working itself up into a lather of excitement and anger even when it is pretty obvious that the performance is rather forced and contrived. What Oscar Wilde said of fox-hunting – the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable – comes close to describing the media frenzy which is now part of everyday Pakistani existence. This is Musharraf’s revenge from beyond the seas, not diversity of news and opinion but the sameness of news and opinion delivered in a babble of 64 different voices.

We flatter ourselves by thinking that as a result of media plurality we are a more aware nation. The truth is more mortifying. We are becoming a dumber nation, feeding on trivia and endlessly dissecting it. This is a new kind of addiction which keeps us safely distracted from the consideration of issues which should be more rigorously looked into and more vigorously debated.

On display in the media generally – and this has to be a loose generalization – is the poverty of imagination and smugness of Pakistan’s lettered classes. (One exception, I think, has to be the exchange of articles and letters on economic matters between Prof Ashfaq H Khan and Meekal Ahmed which make for spirited reading, showing how a polemical exchange can be carried on without being crude and vulgar.)

In short, the media is running out of causes or is failing to see what the causes should be. To nourish its frenzy it has to sensationalise things and dig up meaning where none exists.

The lawyers’ movement has successfully transmuted itself into a near-perfect expression of legal hooliganism, leaving other forms of public hooliganism far behind. It has even managed to take on senior members of the higher judiciary and there is little that the concerned judges have been able to do about it. Their lordships having ridden the tiger of lawyerly opinion now find that they cannot get off its back. Such is the way of most movements. And to think that the more starry-eyed amongst us thought that the rampaging black-coats would be the heralds of a new dawn.

If the firebrand of the lawyers’ movement, Ali Ahmed Kurd, of all people can be abused by a section of lawyers then it only goes to show that the Pakistani malaise, born of many things but born primarily of a lack of culture, is more about a poverty of the intellect and the imagination than anything else. Culture is not just song and dance but one’s attitude towards life, one’s innate understanding of what the good life should be. Balance and a sense of proportion, the ability to engage in calm and reasoned discourse, the inculcation of tolerance, the ability to respect differences of opinion, a natural distaste for verbosity, an avoidance of mass hysteria, the shunning of slogans – these are mental attitudes grounded in the right kind of culture.

Their lordships too were affected by the times, their proclivity to indulge in a never-ending bout of judicial superactivism rooted in the belief nurtured by the lawyers’ movement that they had a near-divine duty to lead the process of cleansing the national stables. As a consequence they spread their wings far and wide touching a never-ending range of subjects , throwing things into turmoil but lacking the power to bring matters to a head or a conclusion.

To the paralysis of government many factors have contributed but this hyperactivism, for the most part conducted without bearing or compass, has also played its part. At its restoration the superior judiciary stood on the topmost peaks. Now it is inviting more than its share of cynicism.

The latest imbroglio it has found itself in is a case in point. Where in the world do judges concern themselves with rumours? Where do they go in a huddle, resembling an extended war council, on the basis of an unsubstantiated news report? This should be a sobering moment for the higher judiciary, an occasion to realise that judges allow themselves to be driven by the media only at their peril.

Agitation has its own norms but stability has its own requirements. Most of the expectations raised by the lawyers’ movement lie in ruins by the wayside. But if something is to be retrieved from the mess there has to be a soberer understanding of what the rule of law means.

Behind this mess lies the constant trumpeting and bellowing of civil society: retired grandees, assorted begums and a range of armchair warriors thundering for change even as, most of the time, they remain unclear what the elements of change should be, or how it should be brought about.

It hasn’t helped matters that the symbol of the Republic is a walking disaster, a man of few ideas and little understanding of how government works. But the answer to that is the spelling out of clear alternatives, not the constant fanning of the winds of instability.
The symbol of the Republic as much as the government he symbolises should have been weakened mortally by the burden of incompetence they carry. Ironically, however, through its ill-considered intervention into the media-generated rumour about the removal of judges, the Supreme Court, unwittingly no doubt, has extended a helping hand to a beleaguered president. The Supreme Court wanted a written assurance that nothing was on the cards but the weakness of its position was underlined when Prime Minister Gilani refused to oblige it and it found there was nothing it could do about it. Who looks discomfited and who looks comfortable?

This should be a time for everyone concerned to sit back and take stock of things. We have wasted too much time. Perhaps this was only to be expected but now is the time to leave the past behind and move forward, leaving it to historians to fight over the battles of yesterday.
Email: winlust@yahoo.com

Criticism of the Supreme Court by Shafiq Awan

Justice should be blind, not deaf and dumb

Shafiq Awan/ Daily Times

Nodoubt the Supreme Court did a wonderful job and for the first time in history, we saw sacred cows at the mercy of the court, otherwise they were considered to be above the law and we salute the Chief justice Mr Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his team for being so courageous.

The deprived feel a sense of strength and pride as every one was being honked with the same stick, which called – justice is blind – treating every one setting aside someone’s status.

Finally NAB has written letters to the Swiss government for the reopening of Swiss cases.

The question is, if the government had done it now, why did it delay this action and embarrass itself?

But every one felt that during Tuesday’s (March 30/ 10)proceedings, the accused were humiliated and the Supreme Court’s remarks were taken in bad taste.

Ali Ahmed Kurd, former president of Supreme Court Bar Association, and many others felt this bitterness and had their own interpretations. Kurd was of the view that he was afraid of the time when the appeals of his clients would be heard in the Supreme Court. Kurd is an emotional person and his commitment with the independence of judiciary is undoubted and the chief justice (CJ) should weight his arguments.

The Supreme Court is the last mercy and through their act, people should not get the impression that mercy could not be that ruthless. Kurd quoted Jamshed Dasti, former member of national assembly, and said he was humiliated by the court. I was also shocked when he recited the holy Quran and the right answers to the question asked by court to a few TV anchors, why he could not answer in the court.

His point of view was t hat he was confused and under pressure due to his respect for the court. Such aggressive and humiliating stance by the Supreme Court is painting a different picture in the public. Although people have argued when you leave your answer-papers blank in the examination hall, you can not blame the examiner as you were under pressure. Even in that case he should not be humiliated. Ahmed Riaz Sheikh’s council Rashid A Rizvi remarks that the Supreme court snubbed him on defending Sheikh in the court.

To me, the judge should speak through his decision but not his grudges. On Tuesday, news channels were painting the judiciary like a horror movie in which cruelty prevails and not sense. Even my kids were confused and terrorised when they were reading the tickers in which the government officers were praying to the court for mercy in the name of God and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), but their pleas were rejected. We are living in a civilised society and not in a barbaric era.

The court can simply punish them if they were not abiding by the law instead of humiliating them and spreading a sense of insecurity among the masses. The Supreme Court could at least direct the electronic media to avoid spreading sensationalism, which is not in favour of the Supreme Court as well. Ahmed Riaz Sheikh might have deserved more punishment, but not the humiliation he received.

TV talk shows are creating a perception that judiciary might have played a role in Nawaz Sharif’s U-turn over judges appointment. There arguments said that Nawaz was told that pending cases against him would be reopened if he supported the proposed amendments over the judges appointment recommended by the PCCR and agreed by his party as well.

These channels are also talking that the president’s wings would be clipped first then it would be his turn. Is it a service to judiciary? Please stop such nonsense discussions and do not hurt the judiciary’s respect and honour.

I disagree with this perception as the judiciary has nothing to do with what politicians are doing. Nawaz Sharif is habitual in betraying as he did with Muhammad Khan Junejo when he sided with Ziaul Haq, then his party while taking a solo flight to Saudi Arabia through striking a deal with the dictator Mushrraf and now backstabbing parliament on the 18th amendment by his U-turn. The judiciary should not be blamed for his acts.

However the argument carries weight as to why Zardari and his team was targeted for accountability. Nawaz Sharif’s dozen of cases are pending in the courts. Why is he immune? Now TV shows are talking about Punjabi Supreme Court as no Judge from Sindh or Balochistan are in the Supreme Court bench? This allegation could be for the sake of allegation and have no weight. But leg-of-mutton sleeve policy should not be applied and both parties should be dealt even-handedly. Justice should be blind, but not deaf and dumb.

Only across the board accountability could save Pakistan. Justice should not be a beauty for a certain group and a beast for others. 

Is the Chief Justice Acting on His Own?

In a country where politics can get very personal, the Chief Justice’s relationships with the pillars of civilian and military power, President Zardari and Army Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani respectively, could be important in shaping Pakistan’s transition from de facto military rule to civilian democracy. 

And those relationships are likely to be tested in the tussle over a package of wide-ranging constitutional reforms that was due to be introduced to parliament, whose purpose is to reverse changes made by previous military rulers, trim the power of the presidency, and alter the procedure for Supreme Court appointments. The bill would take Supreme Court appointments out of the hands of the president, who now makes nominations after consulting with the chief justice, and place them before a government legal committee that also includes several justices. 

The proposed reforms have widened the rift between Chaudhry and the government that has grown since the Chief Justice in 2009 struck down amnesty decrees by Musharraf that protected many senior figures in government — including Zardari himself once out of office — from prosecution on corruption charges. And some saw the Chief Justice’s hand in the eleventh-hour stalling of parliamentary debate on the constitutional package by opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who objected to proposals on the selection of judges. Sharif’s opposition, some senior politicians suggest, results from being pressured by Chaudhry, who is allegedly opposed to having his own power in the selection of judges curtailed. “The chief justice threatened [Sharif]. He said he’d open up all cases against him,” a senior leader of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party said on condition of anonymity. “He’s become an absolute dictator.” 

On the contrary, says a legal expert at the Supreme Court and Chaudhry associate speaking on condition of anonymity, the conflict is caused by the “government wanting a chief justice and court which is compliant, not independent.” 

The standoff over how judges are selected could have far-reaching implications in a political order feeling its way towards democracy, with the different branches of government are attempting to first stretch the bounds of their authority and second, to learn how to work with each other. The problem in Pakistan has historically been with the military’s intervention, transitions have been disrupted, and the judiciary in the past has supported every military intervention. 

But as the two civilian branches of government tussle over their powers, neither appears to have clear backing from the military, whose preferences are often decisive. Still, some Pakistani media commentators suggest that the generals may be colluding with the judges to limit the power of government, already groaning under the weight of the president’s sagging popularity. They point to a stalled but soon-to-be-reopened Supreme Court case that accuses intelligence agencies of using the “war on terror” as a pretext to secretly detain thousands of citizens suspected of links to Baluchi separatists and other radical groups. Supreme Court Justice Javed Iqbal in the case recently said that the court “would not like to create the impression that it was out to destroy or tarnish the image of intelligence agencies” with regard to these cases. 

Chaudhry had in 2007 begun to investigate the issue of Pakistanis alleged to have disappeared into secret custody before he was deposed by Musharraf, and had ordered members of the security forces to produce several of the missing in court. Now, some media commentators are suggesting that Chaudhry is retreating from that fight. Chaudhry’s supporters deny the claim, and say that the court will not shy away from prosecuting any security officials who have broken the law. 

Whatever the outcome of the particular battles over constitutional powers and various court cases, what remains clear is that Justice Chaudhry, while holding an office that is ostensibly above politics, will remain in the thick of it.

Judicial Crisis: Appointment of Judges

Again a judicial crisis – not a bonafide crisis but a crisis created for ulterior reasons

Ostensibly the crisis is the elevation of chief justice for the Lahore High Court in the Supreme Court, the elevation of the next senior most judge Justice Saquib Nasir, as acting Chief Justice of Lahroe High Court (a la Zia ul Haq style).

Being of the view that more harm is done by ignoring seniority, which opens the door for exercise of discretion in principle, I am against seniority being ignored, particularly in judiciary.

My first reaction, therefore, was that the appointment of Chief Justice Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and elevation of the next senior-most judge as Lahore High Court Chief Justice was justified.

I had assumed that in accordance with the Article 177 of the constitution, these appointments were made by the president after consultation with the Chief Justice, and that the president was bound by such consultations.

Was the Chief Justice of Pakistan even consulted?

We are in such a sorry state of affairs where there is a denial whether such a consultation took place between the two highest functionaries of state.

The president’s spokesperson asserts that the consultation took place and is denied vehemently by the Chief Justice.

There must be some documentary evidence to prove that such consultations took place. But much to our regret the people have been kept in the dark creating further controversy. With a poor credibility score of the government, the latter’s version will not be acceptable to the people.

Without consultation, these appointments, in contradiction to the binding recommendations of the Chief Justice remain invalid, being in violation of Article 177 of the Constitution.

To my mind, this issue, which is so obvious and cannot possibly become controversial, has a reason for other reason, namely, the appointment of judges in the High Courts.

There are a large number of vacancies in all the High Courts which need to be filled on an urgent basis, in the interest of litigant public. There can be no controversy over the appointment of these judges. The government has, without cogent reason, evaded the issue of these appointments.

The procedure for the appointment of judges is clear cut. The Chief Justice of the High Court, in order to fill up vacancies, first consults with his colleagues and invites advocates and/or members of the lower judiciary, with a view to obtain their consent to become a judge. Even if there is one seat vacant, the Chief Justice of the High Court recommends two or three names which are forwarded to the provincial government. The limited function of the provincial government is to ascertain the antecedent of the candidate, and along with any adverse material, but without any deletions or additions of names, forwards the list to the Ministry of Law, which, with its comments, further forwards it to the Prime Minister.

Then starts the process of consultation between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister and if a candidate has the concurrence of both the Chief Justices (High Court and Supreme Court), such a person is elevated to become the judge of the High Court.

It may be noticed that neither the President nor the PM has a right to add to, or subtract, from the list of proposed candidates.

This is obviously correct for two reasons – firstly, the Chief Justices know better the competency of the candidate secondly, this appointment is for an initial period of one year, to enable the Chief Justices to ascertain the ability and integrity of the judge.

I will repeat that a candidate whose appointment is confirmed by both the chief justices is binding on the government. In exceptional cases, the PM may give his reasons for his disagreement and the same may be reviewed by the chief justices. But the primacy remains with both the chief justices.

To my mind, the immediate controversy regarding the notifications elevating Lahore High Court Chief Justice and his elevation to Supreme Court is directly related to the government’s reluctance to initiate the process of appointment of Lahore High Court’s judges nominated by its Chief Justice.

Our past history, in matters of appointment of judges, has been chequered for it is public knowledge that the Executive has, more often than not, been interested in appointment of judges of its own choice, which in fact, seriously affects the independence of judiciary for the largest single litigant before the courts is the government.

We have fortunately evolved a procedure, which is not only fair and just, but, in public interest.

In the four HCs large number of judges remain un-appointed for the last so many months only because of the undue obduracy and the expectation that the parliament will provide for another procedure for appointment of judges, to suit the executive.

In my humble opinion, the whole controversy must be resolved without further delay by appointing the judges in the HC in accordance with the Constitution.

In so far as the elevation of the judge from the LHC to fill up permanent position from Punjab in the SC is concerned, it should not be a pretext for delaying the appointments of judges to the Lahore High Court. We are urgently required in larger public interest for immediate appointments of judges as the litigants are suffering for no fault on their part.

Is Musharraf Alone Guilty of Treason?: Danyal Aziz

Is Mr. Ansar Abbasi right about invoking Article 6 of the Constitution against former President Musharraf?  

A dispassionate analysis of the said article of the Constitution proves that he is not right.  

Article 6 states in clause 2 that “any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause 1 shall likewise be guilty of high treason”.  

Article 6 cannot be applied selectively on President Musharraf alone but will have to be applied equally on all those who ‘abetted’ him.  

Musharraf abrogated the Constitution twice.  First in October 1999.  It was a coup against an elected prime minister.  Very few judges objected to the takeover and a majority of the judges took oath under the PCO, Parliament was dissolved and remained suspended for more than three years (endorsed by the Supreme Court) until it was reinstated in November 2002. 

The second was in November 2007 when the so called emergency rule was imposed.  Interestingly, this was not a coup.  The move targeted the judiciary.  The government and the Parliament remained intact and the emergency lasted for six weeks. 

Once Mr Musharraf is charged for treason, justice cannot be selectively applied only on the action of 3 November 2007 while ignoring the more serious action of October 1999.  It will therefore be imperative to try Musharraf and his abettors both for October 1999 and November 2007.  

Now comes the one million dollar question:  Will Article 6 be applied on the abettors of the two arrogations?  

The ‘abettors’ in the Article 6 include senior members of the present Supreme Court who abetted the coup in 1999.  All members of the present Supreme Court of Pakistan had pledged their allegiance to Musharraf by taking the PCO oath in 2000.  

The abettors of the coups led by generals Ayub, Yahya, and Zia ul Haq can be set aside because they and most of their abettors are no longer alive.  But the ‘abettors’ of General Musharraf’s coup are around.  All of them will have to be charged for treason along with Musharraf. That is the only that across-the-board justice will be done.  

Do Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir want to proceed with this mass trial?  

My advice is this: Let’s get out of the Musharraf-phobia and move on with life and the more important issues that the Nation is facing.  

The writer is a Pakistani commentator who lives in Rawalpindi.  He can be reached at danyal_aziz47@yahoo.com

Operation Blue Tulsi: Destroying Pakistan’s Nuclear Assets

PPP government was dismissed in 1996 because Rehman Malik, DG FIA and Asif Zardari had promised Indians and Israelis access to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. 

In 1994-95 Rehman Malik was working in tandem with this immediate boss Ghulam Asghar, head of the FIA, and under the auspices of Asif Zardari, collecting information about Pakistan’s nuclear installations. Malik offered the Indians direct access to Kashmiri and Afghan fighters he would capture.

 In July 2001 Janes Information Group reported that RAW and Mossad were cooperating to infiltrate Pakistan to target important religious and military personalities, journalists, judges, lawyers and bureaucrats.

In the late eighties, two junior intelligence officers one Pakistani other Indian faced each other on opposite sides of the law. The Pakistani intelligence officer had caught the Indian agent on Pakistani soil with incriminating evidence. Indian agent knew his life had come to an end. However, everything has a price. And his freedom was worth a little less than half a million rupees. A few days later the Indian agent was sitting back at home, free as a bird. And life went on for several more years until the fateful year of 1994 when the two old “chaps” met again. This time officially. The Indian agent had climbed the ladder to an important post in the government. At this side of the border the junior Pakistani agent, against all odds had become one of the top bosses at Federal Investigation Agency. Of course, this was the infamous Rehman Malik.

The Indian side wanted Pakistani Government’s help in reducing cross-border terrorism. But Rehman Malik offered a lot more than mere reduction in “cross-border”. He had been appointed as Additional Director FIA and yielded immense power through the country. Additionally he had become the right-hand-man of Asif  Zardari, stashing his looted money all over the world. He offered them direct access to the jihadists which he would capture. Somewhere along the line Israel also became a party to the deal and soon Mossad agents were carrying out investigations of the captured (ISI backed) jihadists on Pakistani soil. There were millions to be made from the deal and of course Rehman Malik was working in tandem with this immediate boss Ghulam Asghar, head of the FIA and under the auspices of Asif Ali Zardari. ISI, Pakistan Military and top brass quietly kept a close watch. Although painful but capture of a few foot soldiers was bearable in the bigger national interest.

By 1995 in a little over a year the Benazir Bhutto government had expelled 2000 Arab mujahidin of the Afghan-Soviet War and imprisoned number of Pakistani mujahidin.

Secondly and more significantly, Benazir Bhutto on her official visit to US in April 1995 met in secret with an Israeli delegation. On her return she faced stiff resistance from a block of military and civilian bureaucracy which had generated great suspicions of her dealings with India and Israel. Just four months later she thwarted a coup attempt against her headed by Major General Zahirul Islam Abbasi. Director General of Military Intelligence Major General Ali Kuli Khan tipped-off General Abdul Waheed Kakar who immediately ordered Chief of General Staff Lt. General Jehangir Karamat to suppress the coup. A total of 36 army officers and 20 civilians were arrested from Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

Then in November 1995 Egyptian Embassy blast occurred. Al-Qaeda was quick to claim it. Although the real reasons of the handlers of bombers remain hidden to this day, but in the next few days a silent but significant event happened. General Abdul Waheed Kakar who was given an extension in his tenure he refused it and Lt. General Jehangir Karamat was appointed as the Army Chief by the then President Farooq Leghari on December 18, 1995. Lt. General Jehangir Karamat was the senior most general at the time, therefore the least controversial within the military. The other three generals who were in the position to become COAS were Lt Gen Javed Ashraf Qazi, Lt Gen Naseer Akhtar, and Lt Gen Mohammad Tariq. Lt. Gen. Ghulam Muhammad Malik had already retired in October 1995.

Maj Gen Naseem Rana was heading the ISI at the time, taken his charge in October 1995. Lt Gen Shujat Ali Khan was heading the ISI’s Internal Wing.

In the backdrop of these events in Pakistan, in March 1995 Israel’s Air Force chief had visited India with an entourage that included key Mossad officials. It was at this point that in a meeting Pakistan’s nuclear program was discussed. A year later Indian nuclear and missile program head, Abdul Kalam had a “top secret” visit of Israel in June 1996. It was “top secret” because no one knew about it. As it turned out, everyone knew about it even before he left India. All the much publicized secrecy and visit of such a top level official achieved the aim and nearly nobody bothered with the entourage which included a manager from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) – Alok Tiwari. The “top secret” meetings between Abdul Kalam and his Israeli counterparts were related to purchase of UAVs. However, in every single one of those “top secret” meetings Alok Tiwari was missing.

Just a few days later, after coming back to India Tiwari accompanied Air Chief Marshal S. K. Sareen to Israel in Israel in July 1996. In fact this was his third trip. He had also visited Israel in April 1996 along with India’s first Defence Attaché to Israel.

First Wave

In late July 1996 MQM organized a province wide strike. Simultaneously a large bomb exploded at Lahore airport and a second at Faisalabad railway station. On 14th August 1996 12 SSP activists were gunned down during an Independence Rally by unidentified gunmen. By end August Punjab had been engulfed in sectarian violence, Shias and Sunnis were being gunned down in broad daylight. The political and security situation worsened by the murder of Murtaza Bhutto and reinstatement of Manzoor Wattoo as Chief Minister of Punjab. The country seemed in a political and economic turmoil with violence erupting throughout the country. At the same time, out of blue Ataullah Mengal returned from his self-imposed exile.

While everyone was busy with the current crisis a team of agents working directly under Rehman Malik were gathering information on Kahuta and A.Q. Khan. Beginning November 1996 ISI saw an increase in Indian troops movement, which finally sent alarm bells ringing through the echelons of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Suddenly, all the pieces fell in place and Ghulam Asghar and Rehman Malik’s shenanigans seemed a lot deeper than mere money grabbing tactics. By fourth of November a thick load of evidence had been gathered on Ghulam Asghar and Rehman Malik working with the consent of Asif Zardari towards gathering information on the progress of Pakistan’s nuclear program.

On November 5, 1996, Farooq Leghari dissolved Benazir Bhutto’s government. At the other side of the border, this caused the immediate visit of Israeli naval chief Vice-Admiral Alex Tal to India. Back at home, Ghulam Asghar and Rehman Malik were imprisoned on undisclosed charges.

Second Wave

In February 1997, Indian Defence Secretary T. K. Banerji led a high level defence delegation to Israel to discuss the “exchange of technology” between two countries. Other than the official purpose the most important topic was Pakistan’s nuclear program. By the end of the visit the two countries had decided to do “whatever” it takes to neutralize the threat.

In March next year the BJP won Indian elections and one of the immediate policies adopted was to tackle Pakistan’s nuclear issue by any means possible. With such enthusiastic approach the government even decided to take the most extreme measures if needed. In the next two months the official and diplomatic delegations between India and Israel came to a halt, however, there was a sudden rise in non-diplomatic delegations between the two countries. The last official visit was of Gen. Prakash Malik to Israel in March 1998, who was also the first serving Indian Chief of Army Staff to visit Israel since normalization. In April 1998 two out-of-the ordinary incidents happened. Air India announced its discontinuation of Tel Aviv flight on 1 April 1998 and early April the Confederation of Indian Industry announced an unplanned “Study Mission” to Israel. This was the prelude to the second wave which officially started on 11th May 1998 when India exploded its nuclear bombs.

Night of 27-28 May

Pakistan resisted testing its nuclear bombs for nearly two weeks until 27th May 1998. On 27 May 1998 in a top level meeting Lt. Gen. Naseem Rana, (DG ISIP briefed the PM Nawaz Sharif and army chief of the increasing intelligence reports of possible Indian attack on Pakistan’s nuclear installations. However, the panic this created was nothing compared to the next two meetings.

The first report pertained to the sighting of an unidentified F-16 aircraft at the periphery of Pakistan’s airspace on 27th May. Knowing India did not have F-16, the obvious suggestion was presence of Israeli Air Force in the area (especially with the reports of Indian COAS visiting Israel just a month ago).

And the second report coming just before 1am on 28th May recorded unusual movements of Indian aircrafts just across the border which suggested India was preparing for preventive airstrikes against Pakistan. The obvious response of nuclear tests on 28th May.

The tests confirmed once and for all that Pakistan has nuclear capability.

Deduction

It seemed probable that BJP Government had decided to fire its nuclear bombs to force Pakistan into test firing its – if it has any. After a delay of two weeks, doubts had started rising in nearly every analytical discourse that Pakistan did not have the nuclear capability otherwise it would have responded. This was the golden opportunity to take out Pakistan/Pakistan’s nuclear installations before that Pakistan got the capability. The important visit of Indian COAS to Israel in March – in the light of proceeding events – could only be regarding Israel’s support for the planned attack. Whatever, the reasons and aims, the end result was establishment of Pakistan as a nuclear state, which completely changed the Great Nuclear Game.

Third Wave

Pakistan’s test firing of nuclear bombs was a shock for the rest of the world. No one expected, in the first place for Pakistan to have the capability and secondly to fire them if it had. For India and Israel, who were two top most interested parties in destroying Pakistan’s nuclear assets, this meant a complete overhaul of their strategy.

A year later Indian National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra came to meet Barak in September 1999 and this time he was accompanied with a familiar face – Alok Tiwari. Within a year, Alok Tiwari and another security analyst finalized a document based on their discussion the preceding year.

In June 2000 L. K. Advani visited Israel in which new deals related to Mossad and Shabak espionage and cooperation with RAW are finalized and as a result Israel was allowed to establish its own network to operate from India.

By July 2000 a heavy deployment of Israeli agents in Indian Occupied Kashmir was reported. Near the end of 2000 Israel’s top intelligence officers were reported to have visited India and discussed amongst other issues, Kashmir and Pakistan’s nuclear assets. By the end of the visit the top spies of the two country had agreed to cooperate on the operation detailed inside the thick volume titled: “Operation Blue Tulsi”.

Operation Blue Tulsi: Preparation

Preparation for the mega Operation Blue Tulsi began fervently in early 2001. By mid 2001 eyebrows were being raised over RAW and Mossad’s cooperation and in July 2001 Janes Information Group reported that RAW and Mossad are cooperating to infiltrate Pakistan to target important religious and military personalities, journalists, judges, lawyers and bureaucrats. In addition, bombs would be exploded in trains, railway stations, bridges, bus stations, cinemas, hotels and mosques of rival Islamic sects to incite sectarianism.

At the same time the Balouchistan Liberation Army rose out of dead like a second incarnation and Balach Marri a Moscow graduate declares himself as the leader of BLA. Within weeks in Balochistan numerous training camps sprouted with each camp reported to be training up to a 100 militants. Intelligence of RAW, Mossad and CIA agents operating in Balochistan started coming in.

In mid 2001 reports appeared that Special Operations Division of Mossad, also known as Metsada, specializing in assassinations and sabotage have been based in India since May 2001 to train RAW operatives and Mossad and Shin Bet or Shabak were operating a number of teams in Indian Held Kashmir and were also operating a delicate spy network from Indian soil. In July 2001 RAW increased its budget for Indian consulates in Afghanistan by nearly 10 times.

Within days after Sep 11, a story was leaked into press that Pakistan is dismantling and spreading its nuclear assets to safer places implying that it would be much more difficult to pinpoint them and much more easier for extremists to get hold of. These news stories were shortly followed by another piece on 28 October 2001 which stated that Pentagon was looking into plans to dispatch an elite unit into the Pakistan to disarm its nuclear arsenal. The special unit which was trained to slip into foreign countries to ferret out and disarm nuclear weapons and operated under Pentagon control with CIA assistance and would be getting special help from Israel’s Sayeret Matkal also known as Unit 262.

In December 2001 Indian PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, while addressing the parliament said, “the question was not whether there should be or should not be a war, the question was under what circumstances there will be war … and whether there will be a war.”

In December 2001 Benazir Bhutto while visiting India said in her interviews, “President, Musharraf, as an army general, had planned the Kargil invasion in Jammu and Kashmir while I was the PM.” Later she also said, “Pakistan army as an institution had brought back Osama bin Laden”.

This rhetoric of Benazir Bhutto was perfectly in line with the agreement signed by US and India in 2002. Late in 2002 US and India signed an agreement on cooperation in disarming Pakistan’s nuclear assets and the two player offensive team of Operation Blue Tulsi found a third partner in the form of CIA. As a result of this deal Abdullah Mehsud was freed from Guantanamo Bay and returned to Pakistan with millions in cash.

Benazir Bhutto’s statements in India were the major reason Musharraf’s declaration of Benazir Bhutto as a “security risk” during a chat with Pakistan’s leading editors and correspondents in April 2002. Pakistani security agencies already had a great deal of intelligence regarding Benazir Bhutto, Asif Zardari and Rehman Malik’s involvement with Mossad and India in 1995-96 and their collaboration against Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

In January 2002 under orders from L. K. Advani RAW and other intelligence agencies submited a detailed report on military options for solving Kashmir issue and in case of a full-fledged war, for neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear assets. One major outcome of the report was creation of Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in March 2002 with the authority to conduct external operations supported by a huge budget.

Also, a Lawyers’ Struggle surfaced in October 2003 under the leadership of Hamid Ali Khan (now drowned under the infamous Lawyers’ Movement). The first prominent protest of the “struggle” was held on 15 October 2003 in which the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Hamid Ali Khan said, “Musharraf’s very presence within the army and holding of other important offices and Shaikh Riaz Ahmad’s continuation as chief justice after his retirement are undoubtedly illegal and unconstitutional… Let’s think collectively, move forward collectively and act collectively to outs usurper generals and judges (who had collaborated with Musharraf including Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. However, like a B-grade movie twist, four years later Iftikhar Chaudry becomes the hero to these same lawyers who wanted to oust him. Like a script from past, this protest had followed a “Long March”. And the “struggle” then moved to other cities one by one asking Musharraf, Riaz Ahamad and among others Iftikhar Chaudhry’s removal from office. At this point along with Hamid Ali Khan, Kazim Khan was at the forefront. Lacking the charisma and cunning of their successors, assassination of a leader, and shortage of “unlimited” billions of rupees their names and their Lawyers’ Struggles has been confined to the dusty pages of history with their names ascribed against the words, “traitors”.

Also, there is no evidence to support that assassination attempts on Pervez Musharraf were somehow related to the timing of the Lawyers’ Struggle.

By mid 2004 the government had ample evidence that BLA and some Baloch leaders were conspiring against the government, aided by foreign countries.

On 13th August 2004 the Chief Minister of Baluchistan, Jam Muhammad Yousaf is quoted by The Herald (Sep 2004-Karachi): “Indian secret services (RAW) are maintaining 40 terrorist camps all over the Baluch territory”. While this was happening on ground, there was talk of “Peace Talks” everywhere in the air. And Jan Muhammad Jamali had become a laughing stock of the media for his suggestion of foreign agents operating in Balochistan, which despite the ground facts forcefully opposed such thoughts.

Operation Blue Tulsi: Start

1st January 2005 was the starting date. The local agents got the signal and the operation started with the ominous rape of a female doctor in Sui on 2nd January 2005. As expected the incident created headlines all round and culprits not being found created a much supported backlash. This was shortly followed by rocketing of gas installation at Sui on 7th January which put a hole in Pakistan’s gas supply for nearly a week.

2005 was a busy year with Baloch terrorists continuously creating havoc in Balochistan and adjacent areas and ended with assassination attempts on Musharraf in December. After President Musharraf escapes a rocket attack on his life in December 2005 and the Inspector General Frontier Corps survives an assassination attempt, Navtej Sarna, the Indian External Affairs Ministry’s spokesman said, “The Government of India has been watching with concern the spiralling violence in Balochistan and the heavy military action, including use of helicopter gun-ships and jet fighters by the Government of Pakistan to quell it… We hope the Government of Pakistan will exercise restraint and take recourse to peaceful discussions to address the grievances of the people of Balochistan”.
The Indian Government had realized that the two assassination attempts would surely result in backfire on the Indian assets in Balochistan, which it needed to safeguard for its final aim, especially Akbar Bugti. Just as suspected, the Government of Pakistan intensifies its operation against Baloch militants.

And in April 2006 Government of Balochistan is setup with its offices in Jerusalem under Azaad Khan Baloch. In a laughingly stupid mistake, Azaad Khan Baloch who is representing Balochis of Pakistan decided to spell his name according to Hindi transliteration with double “a” in Az”aa”d, rather than a single “a” as used in Pakistan, i.e. Azad. Or more probable, “Azad Khan Baloch” is not a Pakistani.

Meanwhile in Balochistan the government operation against Akbar Bugti intensified who took shelter in the rugged mountain range and coordinated the activities of his militants from there. Ultimately the military found him and during the process of capture Akbar Bugti died because of cave-roof collapse on 26 August 2006.

Starting March 2007, every incident occurring in the country was tied to the aim of ousting Musharraf, including the much profitable Lawyers’ Movement. Intelligence agencies were having a field-day bringing in pile after pile of reports proving involvement of CIA, RAW, Mossad and MI6 towards Musharraf’s ouster. True to some extent but unlike analyzed, ouster of Musharraf was just one milestone towards the main goal, which every agency completely missed. Thus, all their efforts went into controlling the situation to secure Musharraf, while in the backdrop, silently the wheels kept turning. While Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan were burning Swat was sitting quietly, unnoticed and out of radar. Within a period of few months, the numbers of “Pakistani Taliban” in Swat surged and just as well their ammunition, latest military equipment a country like Pakistan would dream of. A portion of this ended up in the ill-fated Lal Masjid. While intelligence and military were busy keeping Musharraf’s seat safe in Pakistan, a new political game started in UAE.

Rehman Malik enthusiastically started pursuing the goal of National Reconciliation Ordinance. He became instrumental in the final deal between Benazir Bhutto, US and Pervez Musharraf and NRO. Since Benazir Bhutto did not have much to lose without NRO she was never  interested in it. That was the reason two options were thrown at Musharraf, i.e. either eliminating the two term condition or NRO. Rehman Malik on the other hand was vehemently pursuing NRO, as of the three (Asif Zardari, Benazir Bhutto and Rehman Malik) the Government of Pakistan only had clear evidence against Rehman Malik and it was enough to put him in jail for life (i.e. involvement in espionage and working with Mossad and RAW). However, at that point no one knew the real motivations of Rehman Malik other than that he was working to get the path clear for Benazir’s return. Amazingly, FBI also was putting its weight behind NRO rather than eliminating the two term condition. While, if US had really wanted Benazir Bhutto as PM, logic dictates that they would want the two term condition eliminated to assure her easy succession to the premiership. It needs to be noted here that Rehman Malik had also tried to do a similar deal in 2005, which never materialized. This time it did.

Near the end of 2007, intelligence and military were convinced that a conspiracy had been hatched in the country with the sole aim of removing Musharraf from power. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, simultaneous rioting throughout the country, terrorist activities occurring in every province had considerable similarities to the Bush Administration backed Color Revolutions. In order to keep Musharraf in power the government kept giving into one demand after the other. As a result Rehman Malik becomes head of Interior Ministry, Yusuf Raza Gilani becomes the PM and sweeping changes are made in the security and intelligence community. Still, the government saw the war finally over when in one move Gilani puts ISI under Interior Minister on 27 July 2008. Until that time ISI and top brass had thought all Rehman Malik wanted was to get-rid of extremist elements from ISI and Pakistan’s establishment.

It was the end of July 2008 when the alarm bells started ringing again in the high echelons. Intelligence machinery went into extra high gear and millions later it came back with the name: Operation Blue Tulsi.

Operation Blue Tulsi: the Revelation

The Establishment, only now realized the full extent of the operation which they had been witnessing since the beginning of 2000. More worryingly, the current operation had eerily similar modus operandi to the 1995-96 debacle – which left the country tethering onto its nuclear assets – just that this time it was vastly more sophisticated and greater in size. In matter of hours the priorities changed. Keeping Musharraf in power suddenly paled in comparison to the real threat.

In 1995-96 India came up with a plan to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear facilities before that Pakistan developed a nuclear capability. The plan was prepared by a RAW agent Alok Tiwari (who has recently been compromised). At that time Mossad was already active in Pakistan and once it heard about the project for elimination of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities jumped in by first streamlining the project further and then using its assets in Pakistan. Somewhere in early 1996 the operation was given go-ahead. At that point FIA Director General Ghulam Asghar and his ADG Rehman Malik in a deal with India and Israel were hunting down Pakistan based Kashmiri and Arab militants. These two proved to be the front line in the operation and when contacted by Indian agents fully agreed to supply all the necessary information regarding Kahuta and A. Q. Khan’s operations. Towards mid 96 demonstrations and chaos erupted throughout the country. The aim was to destabilize the country enough that when the two confirmed Pakistan did not have any nuclear capabilities India would go-ahead with all out assault. General Jehangir Karamat who was already weary of the two chaps and Asif Zardari’s complicity took immediate action and Benazir Bhutto’s government was dissolved. The duo of Asghar and Malik and Zardari had already come into military’s radar the year before when they tried to lure General Abdul Wahed Kakar.

Then five years later, Alok Tiwari submited an updated version of his older report. Israel was again consulted and this time L. K. Advani vehemently pursued it. Towards the end of 2000 a delegation of top Mossad brass visited India and the combined operation titled: Operation Blue Tulsi was finalized and put into operation which had only one aim:

Destroy Pakistan’s nuclear assets followed by its Balkanization.

Approach

Resurrect Baloch insurgency. Pakistan was fine with it, as it had 30 years of experience with it, starting with the Afghan-Soviet War.

Buy officials in military, bureaucracy, politics and law. ISI was fine with it, as it had 60 years of experience in dealing with traitors.

Plant agents in top positions in Taliban, FATA and NWFP. A shocker for everyone.

Taliban were the foster child of ISI and the agency had no contingency for enemy agents in top positions. The best option they came up with was to buy back the agents with more money and as a result they were deceived time and again and again. Top on the list, Baitullah Mehsud. The twenty million dollars he got in suitcases was one of the stupidest moves in the world espionage history and ISI top brass to this day are vengefully pursuing him.

Milestones

Friendly political government. Asif Zardari in place, Aslam Raisani in Balochistan (though first choice Akbar Bugti unfortunately dead, MQM’s omnipresence in Sindh, Fazlur Rehman and ANP in NWFP)

Friendly judiciay. Iftikhar Chaudhry, Munir A. Malik, Atizaz Ahsan

Friendly Civil Society. Ansar Burney, Asma Jehangir

Unrest in NWFP and immediate threat of Taliban taking control of Islamabad. Back in 2002 US had agreed with India that if ever Pakistan seemed to destabilize or falling into the hands of extremists, it would help India in destroying Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. The situation they agreed upon is well defined by the Pakistani media’s current theme song of “Taliban are coming to Islamabad”

Immediate Countermeasures

By August 2008 the operation was too deep rooted and it was clear if attention was diverted towards saving Musharraf there was more than a probability of loosing nuclear capability in near future. With Musharraf gone, ISI estimated a window of opportunity of 18 to 20 months before either Taliban or Asif Zardari with his shenanigans destabilized Pakistan. In the greater interest Musharraf decided to step down peacefully.

Operation Blue Tulsi: In Operation

Musharraf stepped down and Asif Ali Zardari took over, but by then the order had been sent and the agents in Swat Valley and FATA who had been preparing for the day for the last eight years launched an all out assault on the military with a single aim of destabilizing Pakistan.

In the eventful month of December 2007 Baitullah Mehsud had already announced officially the formation of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Although right after the victory of PPP Baitullah Mehsud has negotiated peace with the government which led to the great debacle of US$ 20 million by August 2008 he was again involved with the military in a full on battle. ISI and military by this time had realized the foremost importance of ridding the Taliban off foreign agents and assets by any means and costs.

At one end Pakistan military still is trying to safeguard its own assets while tracing out and eliminating foreign agents, while at the other end US is trying its best to safeguard its prime asset of Baitullah Meshud who had taken over after the death of Abullah Mehsud. Until  recently, there had been not a single drone attack on Baitullah Mehsud, while ISI aligned Taliban had been bombed repeatedly, as a result of which many have turned their backs against Pakistan. Only in the recent months four drone attacks on Baitullah Mehsud’s territory have been reported.

Operation Blue Tulsi and Future

Currently the entire country is gripped by the ongoing operations of military against the Taliban. Media which once championed itself as the sympathizers of the Taliban and were chanting “Taliban are coming to Islamabad” have suddenly changed their tunes, especially after being declared by the Taliban as kafirs and thus “killable”.

The economy is in doldrums and corruption is rampantly high but the top brass knows Pakistan is first and for Pakistan nuclear assets come first. Thus, until the country is cleansed of all the foreign agents in FATA and Taliban, the military and intelligence has only one goal, to stop Operation Blue Tulsi at this stage, making sure it never goes into Phase TWO – attacking and destroying Pakistan’s nuclear assets because extremist elements have destabilized Pakistan. 

How Much Paid to Lawyers to Defend Musharraf?

By Ansar Abbasi

PM Gilani’s government appears hell-bent upon keeping under wraps the hefty fees paid from the taxpayers’ money to the Pirzadas, Bukharis, Qayyums of this world during the tenure of the ousted dictator, Gen Musharraf.

The government is steadfastly resisting a formal request to unveil the identity of all those lawyers who made fortunes during Musharraf’s tenure.

Of late even an order from the Federal Ombudsman directing the Law Ministry to provide the said information to an applicant is not being honoured as the ministry preferred to approach the incumbent president to get a decision in its favour to keep the tracks of his predecessor covered. The applicant had sought a certified copy of the list containing the names and addresses of lawyers, along with the total amount paid to them, hired by the federal government/ federation of Pakistan in the Supreme Court of Pakistan from Oct 1, 2002 to March 20, 2008. But the Law Ministry in its representation to the president insists that if the required information is provided to the application then it would open a Pandora’s box, besides creating unnecessary problems and embarrassing situations.

The applicant after failing to get information from the Law Ministry by invoking the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 had approached the Federal Ombudsman last year. Early this month, the Federal Ombudsman decided in the applicant’s favour after rejecting the Law Ministry’s request, but now the ministry has filed a representation against the Ombudsman’s findings with the president, who is requested to set aside Ombudsman’s decision “in the interest of justice”.

In its argument, the Law Ministry wrote to the president that for the purpose of hiring advocates from outside the existing central law officers or the panel of advocates, the ministry had a Legal Advisers Committee comprising the law minister as its chairman and the attorney-general and the law secretary as its members.

It explained the cases of hiring of advocates were decided by the then-Legal Advisors Committee through a meeting which was held for the purpose and the decisions were reflected in the minutes of the meeting. The disclosure of such information, the ministry said, is not covered under the Freedom of Information Ordinance, though the Federal Ombudsman did not agree with the ministry on this point.

“Even otherwise, this record is confidential and classified in nature and was excluded from the purview of the ordinance under the provisions of Section 8 (f) & (i) of the ordinance.

Moreover, if the required information was provided to the requester then it would create unnecessary problems, embarrassing situation, and open a Pandora’s box, further it would be a direct interference in the internal working of this division,” the Law Ministry said, lamenting, “The Wafaqi Mohtasib vide his recommendation dated 4-5-2009 has decided the said complaint in the favour of complainant and directed this division to provide the requisite documents to the complainant within 30 days.”

Now it is for the president to decide whether he would side with the Law Ministry to keep it a secret as who amongst the lawyers made their fortunes while serving the dictator of the past or would he direct the government to make this information public; thus, allowing the taxpayers to judge how their money was squandered by the ousted dictator to perpetuate his unconstitutional rule. The Mohtasib has already given his mind and the ball is now in President Zardari’s court

Lawyers’ Movement was Given Rs 30 Billion?

The Lawyers’ Movement initially began as a result of the actions taken by General Musharraf on 9th March, 2007. Musharraf, after getting intelligence that Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was conspiring with Nawaz Sharif to overthrow the government called for a meeting and asking him to resign or face “charges of misconduct”. The Chief Justice refused to resign and preferred to defend the charges. Within two months the movement took the path of Color Revolution, getting enormous funds from USA and other countries with the main aim of destabilizing Pakistan and forcing Musharraf out of office. The organization and publicity of the entire campaign is calculated to have cost around Rs 30 billion. How much did this cost Pakistan? There is no work done, however, a good estimate would be around US$ 100 billion. 

Why America?

Although the movement was jump started by Nawaz Sharif, on the way it became the main vehicle for USA to remove Musharraf who was not going for US backed Central Asian pipelines but leaning towards China. Bush Administration was convinced by Dick Cheney that if Musharraf stays in power China will get the Central Asian fuels. After Dick Cheney’s February 2007 visit of Islamabad and Kabul CIA starts working with RAW in Afghanistan to arm the suicide bombers and militants in the Red Mosque in Islamabad as the first phase. The process takes nearly a month during which time in a separate incident Musharraf dismisses the Chief Justice. Seeing the Lawyers Movement as a better vehicle, the American and Indian efforts turn from Red Mosque to the movement. 

Another aspect of ousting Musharraf was his decision to clamp down on the drug trade through Pakistan. This would have affected above all, Ahmad Wali Karzai (younger brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai) who earns an annual profit of US$ 1 billion (10% of total Afghan drug money), CIA’s black operations wing and its related US personnel. Thus it was the personal agenda of many in Bush Administration and Pakistan and Afghanistan’s US Embassies to get Musharraf out before he puts a stop to the highly lucrative drug trade. 

Why Dick Cheney?

Early 2007 Musharraf had decided not to go for Unocal (now Chevron Corporation) and Halliburton backed Central Asian pipeline which would have cost Vice President Dick Cheney great sums of money. Thus a personal agenda was turned into a revolution. He tried all in his power to get Musharraf out within the tenure of his Vice Presidency and get Pakistani Government’s approval for the billions of dollars worth Central Asian pipeline to be built by Unocal and Halliburon. 

Timeline of Lawyers’ Movement

04 Feb 2000: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, then 52, is appointed to Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He supports President Parvez Musharraf, voting to ratify the general’s 1999 military coup. 

30 Jun 2005: Mr Chaudhry is appointed chief justice, makes a speech talking of a “serious crisis of confidence between the people and the judiciary”.

March 2005: the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) tries to acquire Unocal with a bid that valued Unocal at between $16 billion and $18 billion. Following a vote in the United States House of Representatives, the bid was referred to President George Bush, on the grounds that its implications for national security needed to be reviewed. CNOOC withdrew its bid. Soon after, Unocal merged with Chevron. 

18 Jul 2005: The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, known also as the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India. 

23 Jun 2006: Supreme Court of Pakistan stops privatization of Pakistan Steel Mills. 

26 Feb 2007: Dick Cheney visits Pakistan for few hours [1]. Mr. Cheney traveled with the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Steve Kappes. Just hours after Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a stiff private message to President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, the Pakistani government lashed out with a series of statements insisting that “Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source”. 

9 Mar 2007: Musharraf removes Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, after the agencies find sufficient proof that he was conspiring with Nawaz Sharif against the government. Nawaz Sharif had promised to make him the President of Pakistan once he becomes the PM.

12 Mar 2007: Lawyers begin boycott of court cases and protests in support of Mr Chaudhry. Nawaz Sharif pumps millions of his own dollars into the lawyers protests. A major portion of this booty goes to Munir A. Malik and Aitzaz Ahsan as their “consultation fee”. 

13 Mar 2007: Mr Chaudhry appears before a closed hearing of senior judges to answer allegations against him. 

15 Mar 2007: An accute shortage of black colored jackets and coats appear throughout the country. Prices of black colored cloths and coats sky rocket because of the demand. (The Reason: Thousands of people are buying black coats which represent lawyers uniform ahead of the protests in the country). 

16 Mar 2007: Violence breaks out at Islamabad rally in support of Mr Chaudhry. 

27 Mar 2007: President Musharraf tells rally in Rawalpindi that no one will be allowed to politically exploit Mr Chaudhry’s suspension. 

27 Mar 2007: Burqa-clad female students from the mosque’s Jamia Hafsa school abduct three women they accuse of running a brothel. The women are released after they “repent”. 

30 Mar 2007: Authorities shut down an illegal FM radio station set up by the students and hardline clerics to propagate their strict version of Islam. 

12 May 2007: Riots erupted across Karachi (2007 Karachi Riots), capital of the province of Sindh and the most populous city in Pakistan, spurred by the arrival of deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan.

18 May 2007: Red Mosque students seize four policemen and demand that authorities release 11 comrades being held in detention. The four policemen are later freed. 

9 Jun 2007: Benazir summoned senior party members to Dubai on 9 June 2007 for a ‘briefing’ by a team from the US Democratic Party’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), ostensibly on the subject of elections in Pakistan. The ruling Republican Party’s International Republican Institute (IRI) had conducted the previous four ‘briefings’ in June and September 2006 and March and April 2007. Benazir leaned towards the Democratic Party in the last one no doubt as a hedge against the party’s possible victory at the forthcoming US Presidential Election. 

23 Jun 2007: Students kidnap nine people, including six Chinese women, and accuse them of running a brothel. They are released after about 17 hours. 

29 Jun 2007: President Musharraf says suicide bombers from an al Qaeda-linked militant group are in Lal Masjid. 

3 Jul 2007: the stand-off between the students barricaded inside the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) and the government results in bloody gun battles. 

4 Jul 2007: Abdul Aziz, chief cleric of Lal Masjid is caught while trying to flee in a burqa. Thousands of students surrender for Rs 5000 and safe passage each. 

8 Jul 2007: The standoff between the Pakistani government and the clerics of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad finally broke down on the morning of 8 July 2007. Government storms the mosque. The government managed to recover 1,300 men, women and children during the operation. Some of these women, who were recovered safely on the last day of the operation, had their written death wishes with them. Six hundred suicide bombers are present in Karachi revealed Qasim Toori and Danish alias Talha during interrogations by law-enforcement agencies. Most of the suicide bombers are also former students of Islamabad’s Lal Masjid. 

17 Jul 2007: Assassination attempt is made on Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry however, he escapes. 

20 Jul 2007: the Supreme Court of Pakistan restored the Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry with full dignity and authority. 

24 Jul 2007: Abdullah Mehsud is killed by Pakistani security forces. 

20 Aug 2007: Ifikhar Mohammad threatened Tariq Pervez (the director-general of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency) with jail if he did not produce ghost detainee Hafiz Abdul Basit. Chief Justice Chaudhry ordered “He must be produced today or you will be sent to the lock-up.” Under this threat he was released by the intelligence agencies. Hafiz Basit was later implicated by Musharaff government in the assassination of Ms Bhutto. 

Sep 2007: Benazir visited the Senate in September 2007, she had convinced the Bush Administration of her unswerving loyalty; for ’she received a standing ovation from a select gathering of US lawmakers, diplomats, academics and media representatives. This contrasted sharply with her previous visits to the US capital when she received little attention.’

Three weeks later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it appear the Bush Administration wished to bring together ‘moderate’ forces, implying a scenario in which Musharraf and Benazir would join forces as President and Prime Minister respectively; and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte corroborated Rice: ‘Our message’, he intoned, ‘is that we want to work with the government and people of Pakistan’. 

18 Oct 2007: An assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto is made (2007 Karachi Bombing) but she survives. President Parvez Gen Musharraf calls the attack on Ms Bhutto’s convoy was a “conspiracy against democracy”(hinting towards the US involvement towards overthrowing the government). 

3 Nov 2007: Musharraf imposed state of emergency. Constitution was suspended. Sixty independent judges were dismissed. Intelligence agencies start systematically killing behind the scene key players in the conspiracy to overthrow the government. Some of these include: Zubair Ahmed Mujahid (shot dead 23 Nov). 

5 Nov 2007: Police raided the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA). After baton charging and throwing tear gas into the premises, arrested more than 800 lawyers.

In the wake of the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan, on November 14, 2007, the Harvard Law School Association decided to award its highest honour, the Medal of Freedom, to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, following the military crackdown the previous week. He becomes the first Pakistani to be presented with such honour.

The National Law Journal picked Mr. Chaudhry as the lawyer of the year for 2007.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York granted Iftikhar Chaudhry an honorary membership in the association on Nov. 17, 2008, recognizing him as a “symbol of the movement for judicial and lawyer independence in Pakistan.” 

27 Dec 2007: Benazir Bhutto is assassinated while Nawaz Sharif escapes an assassination attempt. The two attempts are very different in nature. Benazir Bhutto is assassinated in a typical CIA style while Nawaz Sharif’s attack was more like a domestic killing. It is obvious that Asif Ali Zardari acted on his own to carry out Nawaz Sharif’s assassination. Following Benazir’s assassination planned riots, looting and chaos errupts simultaneously throughout the country. Within a week the country looses nearly 10 billion dollars. 

9 Mar 2008: leaders of political parties Asif Ali Zardari , Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif Pakistan Muslim League signed an agreement to restore the judges within 300 days of formation of national government. Zardari backed out and the coalition failed to restore the judges. 

24 Mar 2008: Yousuf Raza Gilani ordered, soon after being elected Prime Minister, that all detained judges be released. 

12 Mar 2008: was another deadline for restoring the judges but nothing was done. This was the second commitment the government backed out from after the initial deadline of ‘within 30 days of formation of government’ which ended on 30 April, 2008. 

14 Jun 2008: A long march is held by the lawyers. 

7 Jul 2008: ISI explodes a bomb outside Indian Embassy in Kabul killing Brigadier Ravi Datt Mehta who had coordinated the mayhem in Pakistan in December 2007. 

3 Aug 2008: PM Yusuf Raza Gillani visits US. 

8 Aug 2008: ruling coalition leaders Sharif and Zardari once more agree to restore Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as the chief justice if Musharraf resigns. But when Musharraf steped down, Zardari backed out of the deal for the third time. 

18 Aug 2008: Musharraf resigns.

Foreign investment and funds in the revolution stops at this point. 

25 Aug 2008: PML-N leaves the coalition government. 

6 Sept 2008: Asif Ali Zardari is elected the President of Pakistan by the parliament. 

25 Feb 2009: Supreme Court disqualifies Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif from holding or contesting public offices. 

11 Mar 2009: Several hundred lawyers and opposition party’s political workers and leaders were arrested. Ban was placed on rallies and protests in two of the Pakistan’s four provinces. 

12 Mar 2009: Lawyers, political workers and civil society gather in several cities for the Long March to Islamabad. Scuffle with police, hundred of arrests were made, none allowed to leave their cities for Islamabad. 

15 Mar 2009: authorities placed Nawaz Shairf, Atizaz Ahsan and many other leaders under house arrest. Shairf broke through the road blocks with his supporters and came out on the roads in Lahore to begin the Long March. This is believed to be the turning point of the movement Thousands of people joined the rally.

Midnight 15/16 March, 2009 government gave when thousands of people moved towards Islamabad lead by Nawaz Sharif. Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry was restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan and other judges dismissed by Musharraf.

US and Canadian Involvement

During the Lawyers’ Movement a completely new dimension of indrect involvement of USA in overthrowing a government was seen. The prominent of these were:

33 US Senators wrote to President Musharraf to release Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan immediately.

The US magazine Foreign Policy named Aitzaz Ahsan as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world in May 2008.

In early 2007, Musharraf was extremely popular. According to a US survey, IRI President General Musharraf was more popular in Pakistan than opposition leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Around 37 per cent of the respondents were of the view that Musharraf’s supported PML-Q deserved to be re-elected. However, by August 2007, after the lawyers Judicial Activism started, Musharraf became slightly unpopular in Pakistan due to persistent media efforts and anti-Musharraf talk shows. An International Republican Institute survey, taken of 3000 people, showed that 64 percent of the population did not want another term to be granted to Musharraf as the president of Pakistan. 

USAID spent more than US$ 150 million (part of the American fund on terrorism which is “given” to Pakistan) within a year on helpding the movement. 

GEO TV which charges Rs. 100,000 per minute of air time showed continued transmissions of upto 30 hours. During the year the channel was spending more money than it showed in its tax returns. The only unaccounted profit was for “Voice of America” show. But whatever GEO TV was getting for airing the show it was enough to turn higher profits than airing aids for 30 hours (=Rs. 180,000,000 or US$ 3 million). And we are taking about this much money every day.

Why was Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) distributing funds during the movement is anybody’s guess? 

Impact of Lawyers’ Movement

Pakistan’s economy suffered gravely, government focus shifted from work and economy to non-violent solution for the lawyers. PML-N was already fully involved from the onset, however, other political parties also jumped on the band wagon causing more disruption in daily life. The poorest and daily labourers suffered the most because of strike calls and road blockages.

The real story on the road was that poorest don’t wake up every morning to see Iftikhar Choudhry wearing a black suite, sunglasses, sitting in a new car parading on the streets of Pakistan, the poorest wake up and hope for a better day, a day in which they can increase their earnings and support their family, bring food to the table, they don’t want to see the roads blocked and strikes called which stop them from earning their daily livelihoods. 

As the riots and protests were held in the summer months, the intense head resulted in numerous deaths and hospital admissions because of heat exhaustion, nearly all of which were small time lawyers and their family members travelling either on foot or in non-airconditioned cars.

However, the behind the scene aim of ousting Parvez Musharraf was achieved at the end. 

Go Musharraf Go

Interestingly enough the salogans along the protests were not anything like “bring back Iftikhar Chaudhry” but they were “Go Musharraf Go, Go Musharraf Go.” The questions need to be answered that if the lawyers really wanted Iftikhar Chaudhry reinstated then why were they continuously chanting “Go Musharraf Go”.

Also, there were sixty judges dismissed however, only one was being paraded around and continuously given coverage and publicity.

End Result

Dick Cheney achieved the milestone of ousting Pervez Musharraf however, his final goal of getting the pipeline deals for his company did not materialize even after the change of the regime.

Winners 

Asif Ali Zardari – became President of Pakistan and had doubled his wealth within a year

Asif Zardari’s friends

Aitzaz Ahsan – earned world-wide fame, became a hero in Pakistan – monetary benefits yet to come

Munir A. Malik – earned tens of millions of dollars

Indirect Beneficiaries

There were some indirect beneficiaries of the entire movement such as:

Imran Munir

Collateral

Or in other words, Losers.

Benazir Bhutto (assassinated 27 December 2007) – she was in for power

Pervez Musharraf – out of office

Syed Hammad Raza (shot dead 14 May 2007) – he was in to get an important political seat

Kenneth Scott Andrew (murdered 8 April 2007) – to get promoted

Zubair Ahmed Mujahid (shot dead 23 Nov) – to get promoted

Dick Cheney – did not get the pipeline deal

Brigadier Ravi Datt Mehta (assassinated 7 July 2008) – to get promoted to Major General

Lesson

Unless you are as cunning and conniving as Munir A. Malik or Aitzaz Ahsan in a high level and stakes conspiracy you are very probable to end up dead. Don’t play for emotions or ego, play for money and you will win.