Accountability must be meaningful – and across-the-board!
the reported rejection of the nomination papers of Ayaz Amir from NA 60 for having written a column that allegedly “advocated open availability of wine, criticised the blasphemy laws, Hudood Ordinance, Objectives Resolution and the ideology of Pakistan” stretches the process of accountability into the realm of the bizarre and the unbelievable. Understandably, the article in question was written and published in English and the judgement has been given on the basis of its translation in Urdu that was made available to the Returning Officer.
This single judgement is tantamount to putting the brakes on the prospect of ‘thought’ and ‘debate’ in the country and takes Pakistan a million miles towards being dubbed an obscurantist and theocratic state. Often have I written on the subject how a mere few have hijacked the higher ideals that propelled the creation of Pakistan and how have these few engaged in acts to nullify all that the Quaid advocated for the new-born state. From re-branding his famous saying “unity, faith, discipline” as “faith, unity, discipline” to, quite literally, disowning his crowning address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 when he demolished all artificial barriers separating the Muslims from the Christians, Hindus and believers of other religions as citizens of Pakistan, these few have malevolently indulged in acts to damage the enshrining precepts of Pakistan’s creation. From rubbishing a large number of the Quaid’s guidelines to falsely attributing to him things that he never said, the predominant effort has been to corrupt the foundations on which the edifice of a new state was erected.
In his historic address, the Quaid had said: “Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous, we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be on end to the progress you will make”.
Further elaborating his concept of equality of all citizens in the eyes of the state, he went on to say: “You are free. You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State”.
Understandably, Ayaz Amir will go into appeal and, hopefully, his papers will be cleared, but the decision of the Returning Officer will continue to germinate through the minds of multiple other self-righteous Muslims who take upon themselves the task of the ‘saviours’ to put the rest on the ‘right’ path. This decision will further broaden the divisions which have gravely plagued the society and have virtually stymied its growth potential.
The decision comes in the wake of reports of questions being asked from potential candidates that are loaded with religious undertones. They have been asked to recite the Kalimas and the Suras. As compared to determining the religious inclinations of a potential candidate, much less stress is being laid on determining his credibility, competence and his conformity to the rule of law. That turns an otherwise meaningful exercise into a farce meant to perpetuate a message of captivity in the hands of the Returning Officers who may become agents for promoting an agenda of obscurantism and theocracy and for annulling the prospect of a healthy debate in the society that is an absolute pre-requisite for paving the way for progress based on the enshrining principles of equity and equality.
The role that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has played in allowing all this to happen in the name of articles 62 and 63 of the constitution should also be scrutinised in greater detail. Leaving the fate of the potential candidates in the hands of the Returning Officers who were never formally trained to do the job casts aspersions on the competence and intentions of the ECP and its functionaries. The fact that the ECP stayed mum on the fake-degree issue for almost three years and acted only after the Supreme Court (SC) ordered it to do so should also be probed. The initial u-turns on the issues of the delimitation of constituencies and registration of voters under the supervision of the army in Karachi also need to be looked into. The damaging ambivalence in formulating policies and directives for conducting the general elections also needs an elaborate enquiry. The re-posting of controversial officers, who were removed in the past under the SC instructions, to critical positions that may impact the outcome of the elections also needs to be probed.
One also understands that there are objections raised to the candidature of some leading political stalwarts in the race. Dealing with these objections would pose a stern test to the ECP and its functionaries. It remains to be seen whether they are able to uphold the principles of justice and fair play in all such matters. It is also intriguing that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has sprung into life in the case of the Sharifs and the people have been reminded of their Rs. 3.48 billion default pertaining to the Hudaibiya Paper Mills. This may not be their only default. There may be others that need to be made public. But, NAB should also be equally forthcoming in cases relating to the members of the former ruling-coalition including the intending candidates from the PPP, PML-Q, MQM, ANP and others. It should also come out clean on the episode of one Touqir Sadiq who continues to evade arrest in spite of SC’s repeated orders to produce him. It should also comply with the SC directives on the Rental Power, NICL, Ephedrine and multiple other scams. A one-sided accountability would be a travesty of justice. It is not any less of accountability that one advocates. It is more of it, but it should be transparent, indiscriminate and across-the-board.
The writer is a political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]
