ON May 11, 2007 a constitutional petition (No D-1020/2007) was fixed for hearing before the Sindh High Court when the additional advocate-general “filed a statement signed by the home secretary, government of Sindh, Karachi to the effect that government of Sindh takes full responsibility for the protection and security of the Hon’ble Chief Justice during said visit [on 12.5.2007] and foolproof security measures have been planned for this purpose”. Despite the statement submitted by the government of Sindh, the High Court deemed it necessary to “direct [both] the federal government as well as government of Sindh to ensure foolproof security”.

On May 12, 2007 as per figures submitted in court by the officials, 50 lay dead, 234 were injured, 110 vehicles burnt, four properties destroyed, and the offices of the ‘AAJ TV’ came under sustained armed attack lasting many hours.

A seven-member bench of the SHC in Karachi was constituted to hear the May 12 case. The bench comprised Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Azizullah M. Memon, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Maqbool Baqar, and Justice Ali Sain Dino Metlo.

By an order dated 28.5.2007 the bench appointed Khalid Anwer and myself as amici curiae (friends of the court). It may be clarified that the appointment carries no remuneration, whilst placing a heavy responsibility to assist the court to the best of one’s ability.

The SHC was considering the events of May 12, including the access of judges to the High Court that had been blocked and some of them had been intimidated whilst coming to court.

The SHC started hearing the matter. It did so over a period of about six months. The matter was very serious and the government functionaries were very worried. The eyes of the nation were riveted on the proceedings. The city and the nation yearned for justice.

By an order dated 8.8.2007 the seven-member bench issued notices to the attorney-general of Pakistan, Sindh advocate-general, chief minister of Sindh, minister of ports and shipping, and adviser to the chief minister on home affairs.

Through the same order, the federation of Pakistan and the province of Sindh were arrayed as respondents in the case. It was further ordered that the respondents provide answers to 40 specific questions. The court also issued a notice to five private TV channels and directed them “to provide all the material information/record available with them as to the incident which took place in Karachi on May 12, 2007.”

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan was also issued a notice. The private TV channels provided the material that was available with them. The government functionaries sought repeated adjournments. The government of Sindh in an unprecedented move engaged private counsel, whilst the attorney-general of Pakistan never once appeared before the court.

By an order dated 3.9.2007 the chief executives of various private media channels were directed “to file DVDs/CDs of various talk shows / press conferences given by home secretary, Government of Sindh, as well as adviser to chief minister, home affairs, government of Sindh”. By an order dated 6.9.2007 the government of Sindh was “directed to obtain the comments from various SHOs/TPOs, in whose areas incidents took place on May 12, 2007”.

By an order dated 7.9.2007 the government of Sindh was “directed to supply copies of the footage of the CCTV cameras which are installed around the premises of the High Court by the police authorities on 12.5.2007”. On Sept 10, 2007 the SHC hearing the case was “compelled to adjourn the proceedings” because “the courtroom, corridors of the building as well as the courtyard of the High Court” was “packed with an unruly mob”, who in the words of the seven judges, “are perhaps bent upon creating a law and order situation”. It was also noted that “security arrangements are also conspicuously missing”. Advocate Raja Riaz was shot dead a couple of days after he had an altercation with the counsel representing a government department.

On Oct 22, 2007 the seven-member bench after hearing the matter at considerable length adjourned the case to Nov 5, 2007. On Nov 3, 2007 retired General Pervez Musharraf struck. All judges who did not take the oath of personal loyalty to him were incarcerated.

On Nov 16, 2007 the case was listed for hearing before five judges who had taken the fresh oath and before two new ones, but the said bench never assembled and the matter was never put up in court.

On Nov 16, 2007 I submitted the following signed statement in C.P.No.D-1125/2007:

“The Full Bench constituted to hear the petition, comprised of the following Hon’ble Judges:

1. Mr Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany,

2. Mr Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali

3. Mr Justice Mushir Alam

4. Mr Justice Azizullah M. Memon

5. Mr Justice Khilji Arif Hussain

6. Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar, and

7. Mr Justice Ali Sain Dino Metlo

“The Hon’ble Full Bench appointed the undersigned as amicus curiae and the undersigned has been rendering assistance as and when required.

Surprisingly the petition has not been fixed for hearing before the aforesaid Full Bench. Unless the Judges themselves decline to hear a case, which clearly has not happened, it cannot be affixed before another Bench.

“The Senior Puisne Judge, Mr Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, and his four senior companion Judges, namely Mr Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mr Justice Mushir Alam, Mr Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar, have been restrained from entering the High Court, which was one of the reasons that resulted in the instant petition. Yet the very same act is being repeated. In view of the fact that amongst others the Federal and Provincial Governments are arrayed as Respondents the attempt to bypass the said Full Bench is a matter of extreme concern.

“The aforesaid learned Judges had taken oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.’ A High Court Judge continues in his office until he resigns, retires or dies. Mr Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Mr Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mr Justice Mushir Alam, Mr Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar are all Masha-Allah alive, have not retired nor have resigned and therefore continue to be Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Sindh. Article 5 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan stipulates, that ‘obedience to the Constitution and the law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen.’

It is therefore incumbent that the petition be fixed for hearing before the aforesaid Full Bench that had heard it for the last about six months.”

Abiding by the Constitution, in deference to the heavy responsibility placed upon me and my conscience I had no option but to submit the aforesaid statement.

No hearing took place on Nov 16, 2007, despite the case being listed before a new seven-member bench.

On Nov 19, 2007 the case was fixed for hearing before a shrunken five-member bench, three of whom had taken the fresh oath and two new ones. This is the bench that has decided the May 12 case. Justice Mrs Yasmin Abbasey and Justice Mrs Qaiser Iqbal, who were amongst the seven members as shown in High Court Daily List of 16.11.2007 did not form part of the reconstituted bench. It is also not known why two of the judges who formed part of the original seven-member bench, namely Justice Azizullah M. Memon and Justice Ali Sain Dino Metlo, who had taken the fresh oath did not continue to hear the case.

The ‘judgment’ that has been delivered on Feb 4, 2008 states, that “the members of the law-enforcement and other agencies have filed their respective affidavits/counter affidavits in which they have assured that they have discharged their functions to the best of their capability, keeping in view the factual situation at hand…Thus in our view this is not a fit case where the Court should extend interference…”.

The above is a narration of the facts as per the record of the High Court and no personal opinion is offered. The citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, “wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured”, “wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights”, including the right “to enjoy the protection of law” (Article 4 of the Constitution), wherein “no person shall be deprived of life or liberty” (Article 9), wherein “all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law” (Article 25) may draw their own conclusions.

(Ghalib’s death anniversary falls on February 15)

Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, one of our greatest poets, was in Delhi when the uprising of 1857 was at its peak. He observed the revolutionary changes taking place during his lifetime. And his travel to Calcutta (now Kolkata) in 1830, the then capital of the British India, had broadened his mental horizon. But no change or revolution, no matter how great, could reflect in his poetry.

There are barely a few of Ghalib’s couplets that can truly be attributed to any political or social upheaval. A few of his ghazals and couplets are sometimes unscrupulously reproduced and quoted as portrayal of the political revolution that saw Indians losing the war of freedom and Mughals their throne. But the fact is that his poetry has got nothing to do with the events of 1857 as he had composed such ghazals and couplets much before the rebellion.

But Ghalib’s Urdu letters reward anyone who is lucky and wise enough to read them. Many of them give an account of the events of 1857 and, besides carrying some biographical details about Ghalib, make a good reading, too.

He began writing letters in Urdu in or around 1847. He quit the old-fashioned way of writing letters that essentially meant long salutations and tortuous language and instead went for a very lively and frank style. The language of his letters is simple yet literary and sounds like the conversation of a person of highly developed tastes and knowledge. His ability to smile at his sorrows and brighten up at the gloomiest moments has made these letters a good example of decent humour.

Ghalib talked of the 1857 revolution in many of his letters which portrayed the pain and sorrows that he had felt. However, he was careful enough not to say anything that could offend the British. His attitude towards the ‘rebellious’ Indians was not sympathetic at all and at least on one occasion he denounced the Indians that killed the persons of British origin during the revolution. Ghalib had many friends among British officers. He had been trying all along to earn more favours particularly an award and pension from the British.

In fact there had been bad blood between Ghalib and his literary opponents much earlier. The literary circle that celebrated his imprisonment in 1847 for running a gambling den at his place was among the front-runners in the revolution of 1857. Renowned among them were Ustad Ibrahim Zauq and Maulvi Muhammad Baqar (who was later hanged by the British), editor of Delhi’s paper, Urdu Akhbar, and father of Muhammad Hussain Azad.

Zauq, Muhammad Hussain Azad’s teacher and mentor, was his foremost literary opponent and he could become the last Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar’s Ustad (one who ‘advises’ the king on his poetry) only after Zauq’s death.

The literary group that opposed Ghalib was pinning their hopes on the ‘mutiny’ of 1857, expecting the defeat of the British and full restoration of Mughal monarchy. On the other hand, Ghalib had sensed a defeat of the revolutionary forces at the hands of the British as the rebellion was neither well-organised nor powerful enough to counter the military might of the foreigners.

Among his Urdu letters written during the war of independence, many were addressed to the ruler of Rampur, a friend and benefactor of Ghalib. As the letters contained some political advice and spoke on the aftermath of the revolution, apparently not too sympathetic or reverent towards the revolt and the Mughals, Ghalib had requested that the letters be destroyed once read.

This was the time when he wrote Dastamboo as a personal diary or journal in Persian. It records the events from May 11, 1857 to July 31, 1858. The book not only carries chapters from Ghalib’s personal life but it also speaks of the situation of Delhi and the British troops.

Ghalib tried to make his readers believe that the book offered the true picture and nothing had been added or omitted though he feared for his life when anyone found near or dear to the Mughal king was being prosecuted. He remained attached to the Red Fort as Bahadur Shah Zafar’s mentor and his loyalty to the British could have been questioned. In fact Ghalib wrote Dastamboo to show his loyalty to the British and, as we know, truth is the first casualty of war.

Dastamboo was published in November 1858 from Agra when the sword of the Press Act had fallen on the Indian press and the printing permission given for many newspapers had been cancelled. Dr Moin-ur-Rehman has very rightly pointed out in his book Ghalib Aur Inqelab-i-Satawan that while the printing presses were being forced to close down by the British for publishing ‘rebellious material’ and newspapers were forced to cease publication, how could any book be published that was not in favour of the British.

When Ghalib asked in a letter written on August 1, 1858, his friend Mirza Tufta to see if Dastamboo could be published in Agra, he was surprised and asked how in those circumstances (when the press act had been enforced) any press would be willing to print a book that could invite the anger of the government. Ghalib replied: “I will present a copy of the book to Nawab Governor-General Bahadur (Lord Canning) and another through him to Malika-i-Muazzama Inglistaan (the Queen of England). Now you should understand what will be the style of writing and how any press could dislike its printing.”

In a letter addressed to Mir Mehdi Majrooh in October 1858, Ghalib wrote: “The owner of the press had shown, with the help from Munshi Hargopal Tufta, the manuscript of the book to the authorities in Agra for the permission to print. The authorities gladly permitted.”

The British authorities must have been glad to see it in print form as the book covered up the truth and the writer conveniently forgot what happened in the aftermath of the failed ‘mutiny’ and how the British ran amok with a desire for revenge.

It is beyond any shade of doubt that Ghalib had written Dastamboo to save his skin and to show his loyalty.

drraufparekh@yahoo.com