Dada geeri

Legal eye: Dada geer syndrome
By Babar Sattar
The NEws, May 19, 2007

General Musharraf narrates a story of his childhood in his memoirs that helps understand in part our prevailing political culture of intimidation. The general states that one day when a resident bully wanted his older brother to hand over some kite string that his brother had caught, he jumped into the conversation and refused to hand over the string. He confesses that there was no provocation from the alleged bully and further states that, "without thinking I punched the bully hard. A fight ensued, and I thrashed him. After that people recognised me as a sort of boxer, and I became known as dada geer -- an untranslatable term that means, roughly, a tough guy whom you don't mess with". The only problem with this narrative of bravado is that 'tough-guy-that-you-don't-mess-with' itself sounds like an elaboration of the term bully.

With Karachi burning and the carnage of innocent people underway, General Musharraf came to the bully pulpit in Islamabad amid celebratory drum-beat and informed fellow citizens that the butchery was a consequence of (i) politicising the issue of judicial independence, and (ii) insistence of the chief justice to go to Karachi and address the bar council against advice of the Sindh government. The king league convention of May 12 was revolting, and the general's demeanour and the incredible content of his speech probably lost him more die-hard supporters during that unforgiving evening than all the follies of his regime put together.

The events of May 12th made some significant contributions to the nation's public consciousness. One, it reaffirmed the popular view regarding the MQM as a political group characterised by an obsessive preoccupation with victim-hood that continues to treat Karachi as its personal fief devoid of all ethical and legal restraints in its brutal pursuit of unbridled power. And two, it exposed the precariousness of Pakistan's muted calm and highlighted afflictions -- intolerance, political violence and intimidation, failure of the writ of the state and rule of law – that were never healed but covered by a thin veneer of the general's authoritarian rule. By exposing its dark side on May 12 the MQM hurt itself and robbed Karachi of freedom from fear that was only beginning to seem real after years of quiet.

The MQM has reduced its stature from a major political party in Sindh to armed goons, whose ideology is self-righteous and bigoted, operational strategy based on fear and intimidation, and political logic flawed. The MQM announced after the CJ's trip to Lahore that it apposed the lawyers' movement for independence of judiciary and would hold a rally against the movement the day the CJ visits Karachi. Its argument for opposing the movement for judicial independence is as follows: (i) any movement for judicial independence should be focused on the institution and not linked to an individual; (ii) the real heroes in the judiciary were the judges who resigned in protest against the Musharraf regime when it imposed its provisional constitutional order on the courts and not the present CJ; (iii) the CJ lost all moral ascendancy while swearing oath under the provisional constitutional order and should thus apologise to the nation and resign his office; (iv) the opposition parties should not politicise the issue and leave the matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

The train of the MQM's thought is conflicted on multiple levels. One, institutions do not act for themselves, but are comprised of individuals who act on their behalf. The movement for judicial independence is focused on the institution, but the immediate trigger was the treatment meted out to the chief judge by the army chief that highlighted the vulnerability of the judicial arm in face of executive's coercion. Two, there is little doubt that Justices Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Nasir Aslam Zahid, Khalilur Rehman Khan, Mamoon Qazi and Wajeehuddin are national heroes, who established that principles are to be practiced and not just moralised. But that was a lesson not just for the legal fraternity but all citizens, including politicians.

The problem with the PCO was not that it was bad law in a legalistic sense, but that it was law given by a dictator who overthrew the constitution. What moral authority does the MQM have of pointing out CJ's oath under the PCO when it is itself a part of the regime that wrote the PCO? And three, to the extent that the MQM is taking the moral high ground against the fallen CJ, why only ask him to resign and apologise to the nation? To the extent that swearing oath under the PCO was unscrupulous, why doesn't the MQM demand that all judges serving under the PCO resign their offices? Further, in view of the MQM's position on the PCO, is it not self-contradictory to ask lawyers not to agitate the issue and place their faith in judges functioning under the PCO? The bar councils at least passed resolutions and took out processions against the PCO, even if they were unsuccessful in generating public support. What did the MQM ever do to condemn the arbitrary rule of a dictator?

The events of May 12 have left the nation aghast. People heard a local TV channel's pleas for protection for hours at length without avail and watched armed militias patrolling the neighbourhood, firing weapons and indulging in arson. They also saw the CJ and his legal team held hostage at the airport, and the courageous black coats being beat up at the district courts in Karachi or incarcerated in the Singh High Court compound. People watched corpses lying around, and the reign of terror unleashed in Karachi was felt in the four corners of Pakistan. And then they heard the governor and the chief minister of Sindh, the MQM leadership and the general himself speak in unison blaming the CJ and mysterious miscreants and conspirators for the carnage.

Liability springs not just from acts but equally from omissions. Even if one ignores all smoking guns pointing to a deliberate strategy of the Musharraf regime to provide dissenters and those sitting on the fence an illustration of the dada-geer philosophy, the king league and the MQM were duty bound to protect the life, liberty and security of citizens of Karachi. How can the Musharraf regime and its cronies evade responsibility for the mayhem in Karachi when they did absolutely nothing to prevent it? If opposition parties were indeed conspiring against the general's benevolent rule, was it not a golden opportunity to arrest the terrorists and reveal their black faces to the public?

The disquieting realisation that seeped deeper in public consciousness on May 12 was that any amount of damage is acceptable damage for our ruling regime so long as it manages to cling on to power. The speeches at the king league convention were even scarier as they established that sycophancy knows no bounds and all that it takes to create one's own reality is selective processing of information and a strong imagination.

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu