Tit for tat

Zia’s constitutional monsters still haunt us

The time chosen by Arsalan Iftikhar to seek Imran Khan’s disqualification indicates that the move is motivated more by vengeance rather than concern for the constitution. He could otherwise have raised the issue when the PTI chief had filed nomination papers or soon after he was elected. The realisation that Imran Khan had violated Article 62 and was not eligible to contest polls came somewhat belatedly when Khan not only initiated a tirade against former CJ Choudhary but also put pressure that led to Arsalan Iftikhar’s resignation from a lucrative post. When Iftikkhar sought copy of Imran Khan’s nomination papers, the PTI circles suspected that the PML-N was behind the move.

The move was followed by PTI’s bid to unseat Nawaz Sharif. A party MNA suddenly realised that the prime minister had been convicted in the Asghar Khan case and the helicopter hijacking case and had thus violated Articles 62 and 63 on the basis of which he could be held ineligible to become a National Assembly member. Even if one was to assume that both sides have genuine cases, the timing indicates that one would have continued to maintain silence if the other had done so, thus calling into question the moral high ground claimed by both.

It is a bad practice to take political issues to courts. These should instead be resolved through talks between political parties. A number of constitutional amendments were introduced by Ziaul Haq for projecting himself as a defender of Islam. Some of these continue to divide society and cause suffering to minorities while others serve as political booby traps. Some of the provisions in Article 62 and 63 can lead to disqualification on flimsy charges if interpreted in a narrow sense. Pusillanimity on the part of the political parties which remain mortally afraid of the religious right stopped Raza Rabbani Committee from striking them down when it was discussing amendments. Unless these are done way with, the system will remain in jeopardy.