Whether the political parties that voted for the establishment of military courts in the parliament did so wholeheartedly or with heavy hearts apart, the religio-political Jamaat-i-Islami and JUI-F came out no cleaner by staying away from the voting.

If anything, the only two Islamic parties represented in the parliament acted in self interest as did the other parties, though in the guise of national interest. The groundswell against terrorism in the name of Islam demanded they go politically with the flow but cover their ideological flanks in consideration of their identity in areas that gain them political power.

Read: With excuses, lawmakers vote for military courts

Otherwise, both the JUI-F and JI have worked happily with military regimes, most recently in that of Gen Pervez Musharraf, under the banner of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal.

Ironically though, the PPP emerged more wounded from the controversy over military courts trying terrorists. Indeed, the party which had traditionally opposed military trial of civilians actively assisted the PML-N government in the legislation and voted for the purpose.

But the question why the JI and JUI-F shed their pro-military past and others took up that banner draws imprecise answers.

Participants of the three All-Parties Conferences, or APCs, held to make the idea of military courts palatable, recalled that JUI-F only objected to restricting the scope of the proposed courts to religious extremism and sectarian strife, whereas the JI raised no objections to the draft amendments in the Constitution and the Army Act for the purpose, and which have since become law to be operative for two years.

Also read: PPP’s support for military courts angers Bilawal

Background discussions revealed that the JUI-F had more than one pretext to oppose the move. The party wanted the military courts to decide ethnic, linguistic and nationalist terror cases. But the government did not agree, probably because it would have entrenched military justice for a long, long time. Some see even the limited role of military justice staying with the nation for a generation.

JUI-F sharp mind Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, however, wants to know how you destroy ‘terrorism in all its manifestation’?

“We wanted terrorists of all hues to be tried by these courts. What was wrong with that,” he said talking to Dawn, regretting “nobody listened to us”.

Still JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman gave his consent to the needed Constitution amendment on January 2. But a powerful section of the party resisted the move which eventually led to the decision to boycott the final vote.

A top government official sketched a third scenario for the boycott. What became the tipping point for the decision, he said, was that the “direct assurance” that the JUI-F expected from the military in the matter were not forthcoming.

According to the official the JUI-F leadership was interested in meeting the army chief and Director General ISI away from the APC did not materialise.

Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, however, insisted the party’s only interest was “making the amendment balanced” where military courts’ convicts at least get the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Although JUI-F is part of the federal government, none in the PML-N bothered to consult us on the vital legislation,” he said, exposing the party’s resentment against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

About the discussion on the scope of military courts in the APC, Afrasiab Khattak of the ANP told Dawn that the special trial courts were to try certain category of terror suspects who have waged war against the state.

“Some parties did want the military courts also try cases of terrorism stemming from ethnic, linguistic and nationalistic strives but that would have proved counterproductive. The parliament gave assent to 21st Constitution Amendment to facilitate a targeted operation, with a sunset clause of two year,” he said.

According to him, PPP Senator Aitzaz Ahsan who was involved in drafting the amendment was also against enhancing the scope of military courts. To him the terms nationalism and ethnicity were quite broad and could be misused.

“Our argument was that while the military courts will remain focused on dealing with terrorists involved in religious extremism, regular anti-terrorist courts will handle other cases,” said Senator Khattak.

In a private conversation, a government minister mused that Maulana Fazlur Rehman was known for posturing. The Maulana not supporting military courts “made sense” to the minister.

“His entire support base is linked to madressahs, many of which have proven connections with the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan,” he explained.

“Although he could not stop the passage of the new legislation, he can say to his followers ‘look we didn’t vote for this law’.”

Jamaat-i-Islami had to follow the JUI-F lead because the two parties share the same constituency.

But the party perhaps too happy with the new amendment is the MQM. All through the debate on the needed legislation to finish terrorism, the MQM leaders stressed that no other cases except those of religious militants go to the military courts.

JUI-F’s Hafiz Hussain Ahmad was spot on when he said the MQM didn’t want military courts to try perpetrators of the heinous crimes committed in its Karachi stronghold because such a measure would “directly hit their interests”.

Published in Dawn, January 9th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play