Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


Constitutional trap


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

THE shadow of Zia still looms large over our political scene. Several parliaments and parliamentary committees have tried to exorcise this dictator’s ghost from the constitution but they never succeeded in rectifying all the ills. The current parliament is no different.

The committee drafting the 18th Amendment was urged time and again to do away with Zia’s crafty law that allows the disqualification of members of parliament. And now the PPP faces the consequences of its own omission as its prime minister is threatened with disqualification due to the Supreme Court judgment in the contempt case.

The SC has not convicted Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for obstructing the administration of justice but for ridiculing the judiciary. The court has been able to do this because of the law introduced by Zia. Article 63(g) is open-ended and can end up being used by the judiciary to persecute the politicians.

The law disqualifies anyone who has been convicted for “propagating any opinion or acting in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan…”

Very few would dispute that this article is problematic.

For instance, who defines the ideology of Pakistan? Surely this is a political and not legal debate and this definition cannot be left to a handful of appointed judges. Similarly, what distinguishes criticism from defamation or ridicule of the judiciary or the armed forces?

Under this law, it appears as if all citizens are being forced to agree to the independence of the judiciary. And if he or she does not, would they risk being disqualified as a member of parliament?

At the same time, which judiciary and which army men can or does the law refer to? Will the courts allow defamation and ridicule of the Munir and Dogar judiciary but not of others? Those who defame and ridicule Zia, Yahya Khan or Pervez Musharraf may be spared but not those who dare lash out at some ‘worthy’ general.

If the courts define the undermining of the security of the country as they did during the memo scandal, then perhaps half a dozen journalists of international repute, had they been parliamentarians, would also risk being disqualified under Article 63(g).

In short, this constitutional provision was meant to be as much a trap as the infamous Article 58(2) b. And now that the contempt case has shown how effective it can be, it may be used with more frequency in the future. Mr Gilani may be the first victim of this constitutional trap of Zia but he may not be the last — unless the people protest against this undemocratic addition of the constitution by a past dictator and demand its removal.

Partly the judgment was welcome. By the time it came, the non-implementation of the NRO judgment had reached fever-pitch and only a judgment could have brought the temperatures down. Therefore the conviction of the prime minister till the rising of the court was appropriate.

But to stretch his conviction from obstructing to “bringing the court into ridicule” was not welcome and questions have already been raised about it.

The law on contempt is quite clear. It contemplates three forms of contemptuous behaviour — civil, criminal and judicial. The prime minister was accused of civil contempt for wilfully flouting the judgment or process of the Supreme Court but ended up being convicted of judicial contempt which is applied for scandalising the court. The latter does not invoke disqualification for parliamentarians but strangely enough the former does.

However, apart from the legal issues raised, the political consequences are also clear. The Supreme Court finally pinned down the prime minister for not writing the letter to the Swiss authorities against the president. No one has yet discovered the actual reason for the PPP’s hesitation.

Knowing the PPP they may well discover later that the letter may not have hurt them as much as their refusal to write one. One never knows but they may end up doing both — losing their government and being forced to write the letter too.

However, at the moment the prime minister’s conviction has in a perverted sense exonerated him before his party members. And the ball is in the court of the speaker of the National Assembly who has maintained her dignity so far and promised to act in a neutral way. After being stabbed in the back by Leghari, PPP stalwarts are reluctant to follow suit.

But regardless of what she decides, the Supreme Court has hurt the image of both the judges and politicians. The friction between the two broke into an ugly public broil. The worst instincts of both sides were made public to the ordinary people who could not have cared less about this unnecessary confrontation at a time when they were suffering blackouts and rising inflation. And the end when it came, in a way added more fuel to the fire.

The self-righteous and mocking additional note in the judgment authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa makes it appear that this land of the pure, begins and ends with the premises of the honourable Supreme Court. All else is pitiable and can easily be dispensed with. No one can claim to be the only angel amongst so much despair nor should we convince ourselves that there is only one evil amongst a sea of saints.

But all this aside, the prime minister’s conviction has only reinforced the message that time is up for the present government. The best course possible is to call for early elections after meaningful engagement with the opposition.

Both sides must agree to appoint an independent and respected election commissioner. Second, the election ought to be carefully monitored to ensure that it is fair and that that those who lose cannot cry foul. The political parties alone cannot ensure that hidden hands do not cobble together a government that represents everyone but the people of this country.

The nation has experienced immense hardships. Sanity must prevail if we are to survive.

The writer is a prominent lawyer and a human rights activist.

The views expressed by this writer and commenters below do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Comments (62) Closed

A. Siddiq May 22, 2012 10:46am
I agree with Attorney Tausif, the judges in Pakistan have too many unnecessary powers that do not make for a neutral and balanced judiciary. Unfortunately, at no time in Pakistan's history has the judiciary ever played a balanced and neutral role. Pity the nation with such a Judiciary...........
AMA May 22, 2012 07:02am
There's a thin line between following the constitution and doing the right THING. Constitution has been made by elected representatives .... Elected by the poor and un-educated majority of Pakistan who wouldn't know what is right and wrong except to feed their family in times of need by accepting money for their vote. The people they vote for are just as illiterate as they are. Now, using COMMON LOGIC, please tell me, which is more important? Defending a constitution based on a politician's interpretation of constitution or SUPREME COURT's version of interpretation? Ms. Asma Jegangir, politicians have been manipulating law for a long time ... I suggest its time we do what is right for the people of Pakistan as a whole and not waste our time on debating on what is allowed in the constitution. The Constitution of Pakistan was made for THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN and if it does not defend / protect our interests, it is a useless piece of paper!
Sohrab May 22, 2012 03:11am
What a balanced article Asma. My father, Justice Rustam Sidhwa always said 'the judges do not come from the moon but are from the society and represent the society' So yes trying to claim themselves as the holiest is not entirely true. I am sure there are not many fans of the present government but the judiciary is hardly behaving non-partisan. Interestingly enough the opposition which is crying hoarse being the custodians of the judiciary are in fact the ones who when in power themselves stormed the supreme court and ridiculed the judiciary and esentially dismembered it. What a bunch of jokers. I wonder if the Pakistani society is so dumb or simply so tired that they do not care. Keep up the good work Asma.
shabnam baloch May 22, 2012 03:21am
Thanks to Asma Jehangir for bringing such an important issue to the notice. Ver few would have been knowing about this.
Attorney Tausif May 22, 2012 03:27am
I've always admired Ms Asma Jehangir for her independence, integrity, legal wisdom and her determination to fight for human rights of our oppressed citizens, such as women, minorities and poor. Her article above shows the reason for doing so., though she seems to be a bit too soft on this judiciary. As she points our Constitution and laws contain too many inconsistencies and loopholes. They need to be fixed by the Parliament. The arbitrary, broad powers of the judiciary should be curtailed. No judiciary in any democratic country has been given such wide and huge powers, such as appointing their own judges, and ordering and deciding on political and economic and non-judicial issues pursuant to its ridiculous suo motto powers etc, etc.
Mohammaddar May 22, 2012 03:37am
Writer is intently negligent to fact, constitution of Pakistan has already been written with blood of Muslims since the Independence of Pakistan, La, E La, None but none other, but The truth absolute, Spirit of truth is HIS messenger, may be writer can not translate it or is being ignorant to fact on purpose.
ali May 22, 2012 03:48am
Thank you even though I dont agree with your thoughts.
Mustafa Razavi May 22, 2012 04:15am
It is high time that our leaders stop blaming Zia for their corruption.
farhanahmed17 May 22, 2012 04:26am
This so called Democracy has given us Paid Puppet politicians There is no rule of Law.Double standards for nation.Compromise for rich and Speak justice for Poor Memo has proved the reality of paid puppet Politicians. MAy Allah bless and help our Islamic Republic of Pakistan
sehrish May 22, 2012 04:49am
Very well written...
Noorani May 22, 2012 05:08am
Well, when U do not agree with her thoughts, she does not need your thank you either. what made U feel to say thank you.
Muhammad Younis May 22, 2012 05:09am
A lesson for judges and the politicians....they must play by the rules. The judges should come out of their self chosen role of the reformers of the society and act as third party or neutral umpires. more over, constitutionalism must prevail in the country.
Prospero May 22, 2012 05:15am
Thank you, Asma Jahangir. The article is clear-headed and, yes, revealing. If Zia failed to use this provision, which he had inserted for his own use, it was only because Junejo & Company resigned easily. In today's Open Season on Politicians or Anyone Else We do not Like, this is a really potent provision, What is ironic is its first use by a newly empowered Judiciary.
Siemens May 22, 2012 05:56am
Madam, I salute your steadfastness in face of all the troubles that you have faced. May we take courage and inspiration from all your activities;
SHERYAAR May 22, 2012 06:21am
Zahid May 22, 2012 06:37am
This is an honest and unbiased analysis of the writer, who has been working for civilian supremacy in the country. She is a very bold lady, and does not care for the consequences. I fear that she may not be called for explanation by the apex court by considering her article ridiculous tantamounting another contempt of court action. I would only say that civilian rule has never been given enough time and space to flourish and flutter, previously it was a military, which cut short the period of democratic governments, and now it is another pillar, whose decision is stifling the nascent democracy, which was revived after a decade of iron-fist military rule of Musharraf.
Arpit May 22, 2012 06:45am
a balanced analysis..
Sarfaraz May 22, 2012 07:37am
A beautiful blend of legal and political thinking. You have also complained that several parliaments (including the present one could rectify Zia's consitutional amendment (ghost), you are asking the "people" (of this country ?) to protest. While addressing the SC during the Memogate hearing said(to the CJ) that " you are Badshah and can write (or do) whatever you like. And you are also expecting Neutral CEC, Judiciary and Speaker ! Pray your dream come true.
Asghar Mayo May 22, 2012 07:43am
One wonder, what else amounts to ridicule the judiciary, if Mr Gillani is wrongly convicted for offence which he never committed? Respect for Asama Jahangir aside, she herself is not impartial while drafting this Article. One need not to to be John Martial for noting that Asama is speaking for particular agenda. One should have political affiliation but such should not interfere in his or her professional honesty. Yes we are unfortunate nation to have such leaders where politics wins and justice and fairness lose!
@IAgnikul May 22, 2012 07:58am
The bottom line is that we need to wipe the slate clean of this parliament, hope for a transparently fair election and work at a judicial selection process that will deliver a higher calibre of judge in future. Pakistan desperately requires better than its present dispensation of Executive, Parliament and Judiciary.
Caz May 22, 2012 08:07am
We need a causal approach to the problem of pakistan. And realise that it is an historical mistake and politically, economically and morally bankrupt. This mistake must be rectified for its people and a re-connect with India made in peace and unity on a phased basis.
Muhammad Asim Awan May 22, 2012 08:18am
Get out of the Zia syndrome Ms. Asma Jahangir and the like. Times have changed now. I don't care what Zia did but I have my eyes on what is going on around at present i.e. corruption, sheer incompetence and load-shedding. I am sure Zia is not to be blamed for these. Your article is full of contradictions, perhaps that is what is your claim to fame as a lawyer. The reason why I think the higher courts are going an extra mile is just because they seem to be the only institution that is in a position to provide relief to the people. You need to put your soul in reading what Justice Khosa wrote, "pity the nation who demands justice for all but is agitated when justice hurts its political loyalties"
azhar ali May 22, 2012 09:12am
If a person doesn't care what happened to him in the past , he might as well forget about a better future. Zia's ghost has to be exorcised completely, which I am afraid will take considerable time. Bad legacy of these dictators is not easy to erase, we admit. But leaving it haunt the country for decades to come is also unthinkable. Corruption, incompetence are the mantras to discredit political government. The abysmal degradation in which Pakistan finds itself is all dictators' doing, who lost all wars .
Hussain May 22, 2012 09:38am
A balanced and well crafted article. And a good massage in the end "Sanity must prevail if we are to survive."
F Khan May 22, 2012 10:50am
Article 63(g) is too lenient. I should indeed be more precise and allow the courts to actually order the convicted to be thrown out of office immediately rather than mark the start of a labyrinthine process that is never-ending. The courts lose their aura of power and justice suffers when they take years to decide cases and then the law leaves loopholes for the convicts. If there had been an early conviction on contempt, say on the Sindh 'protests' led by Sharjeel Memon, later instances might not have occured.
Naeem Malik May 22, 2012 11:36am
Excellent and sane article Now days very few people like Asma have courage to stands for honesty, equality and rule of law in Pakistan against sheer intolerance. God bless her.
Shfiea May 22, 2012 11:43am
Lets put politics aside and ask a simple question: Has Mr. Gilani BROKEN the law by NOT implementing the Supreme court's judgment? I have followed this case and my answer is simple: Yes he has and has done so deliberately!
Asif Mahmood May 22, 2012 11:48am
I would have to say this article has a clear bias in favour of the Prime Minister's position. This is not surprising as judging by past year or so Asma Jehangir has been defending this administration at one forum or another and also received Hilal-e-Imtiaz for her services to the nation (read government). I couldn't help laughing at her rather naive comment "the Supreme Court has hurt the image of both the judges and politicians". Its not the job of Supreme Court to please people and its not the practice of any self respecting Primie Minister to flout a court's order or maybe she wants the Supreme court to follow the doctrine of necessity which she seem to be missing so much.
Omar May 22, 2012 11:52am
Clarity and vision as usual Asma. Any news in response to my letters ?
Khalid May 22, 2012 11:57am
Polls after polls suggest that this government has completely failed to deliver to people's expectation and the governance is at the edge of collapse. The country is in its death throes and people like you harp on the constitutionality of the verdict. People want to get rid of this ruling class no matter what. Are you completely blind. People are sick and tired of the ruling class and all you can do is waste all your grey matter on constitutional hair splitting. People are fighting for their lives and give a hoot to the constitution. They don't care what constitutional clause is applied... a, b, c, d, e, f whatever.... all they want is to get rid of this inept and corrupt ruling class. Courts verdict should be seen in this context. An article like this reminds me of the Nero and his frivolities while the whole country is burning. Wake up Asma. Where are your human rights credentials. Don't you see the ultimate abuse of human rights of the ordinary man in this country. Is that not more critical to address than trying to split hairs on the constitution.
F Khan May 22, 2012 12:24pm
Dear Moderator, I have sent my comments earlier. The one there is not my comments please can you chcek and put my comments and not someone else. F Khan
conflicted May 22, 2012 12:30pm
The is a difficult one to call. Rather than focussing on the 'contempt' per se doesn't one need to go behind the reason for this contempt. To me it appears this was to obstruct the investigation into Zardari's alleged corruption. I am equally surprised that Gailani -- or the PPP -- should make such a big deal about writing the letter, if he was convinced nothing would come of it. But we hear the Swiss courts convicted Zardari -- is that true? When we throw in the ephedrine scandal, the extravagant shopping trips, it all begins to sound a bit fishy. On the other hand, why is Nawaz Sharif sanctifying the very institution he elected to assault? And why are alleged money laundering/default cases coming up against him not being scrutinized? Indeed why is the Supreme Court handling terrorism cases with kid gloves. Frankly, looks like sticky jalebi to me.
Faisal May 22, 2012 12:41pm
It is called common courtesy or do you consider that to be a problem?
fazal May 22, 2012 12:44pm
I woul dlike to remind all the readers that this is the same Ms. Jehnagir who, while head of Supreme Court Bar Association, tried to get a motion passed at one of the meetings against the Suo Motto powers of the judiciary. She was thoroughly put to shame when she was asked to quote an example where the suo motto power had been abused by the judges. Everything must be analyzed keeping in mind the person who is expressing such opinions.
rashid habib May 22, 2012 01:46pm
Mr asim kindly read the article carefully she is saying that pp govt is facing its own omission which it did in 18th amendment. this is enough reply, but one cant forget zia ul haq every menace what ever you name to day is the sowing of zia ul haq
Rashid Habib May 22, 2012 01:49pm
ms asma why dont lawyer come out with a movement of protecting the judiciary which is being disfigured by its own judges as they are not doing justice but doing politics in the name of justice it is the duty of lawyers to protect their institution from any invader be it a general politician or judge itself
lubna May 22, 2012 01:52pm
Asma and honest are two pols north and south.ask cliënte she daalt with
lubna May 22, 2012 01:56pm
If democracy. Means corrupt and criminals committing crimes for 5 years then save us from this
lubna May 22, 2012 02:07pm
100 percent agreed asma will never get the essence of. Actions taken by this judiciary.she wants criminals to be wonder she is a lawyer who knows her cliënt is criminal. Who has comitted crime but still want to take the case. To defend the criminal cliënt for her fee-money
Mohammed May 22, 2012 02:36pm
Did the PPP leave the judges any choice?
Cyrus Howell May 22, 2012 02:36pm
"convicted for “propagating any opinion or acting in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan…” That leaves a wide latitude for prosecution in the first instance. This really is nothing short of Chinese justice. Every Chinese knows that in the security of hisown home one may criticize government officials. If one criticizes the officials on the street corner, in public, or in a newspaper he or she is subject to a prison sentence. After Zia was dead a Pakistani university student online told me (while discussing Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar) that one of his professors compared Pakistan to the Roman Empire. It is understandable why Zia wanted to give immunity to the Army, but what glares back at me is the phrase "prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan." That should be redefined. A new interpretation of what the ideology of Pakistan actually is now could be re-written into the constitution. "The security of Pakistan"? I guess the dictator and his judges would have decided about that. It surely alludes to internal security. "Propagating an opinion" can be very dangerous for people living under a dictator. That may in fact be the worst of all crimes against the state. "The good old days" were not all that good.
ansi May 22, 2012 03:03pm
Unbiased??? Like seriously............that was hilarious!
Dr. Pervez Zaheer May 22, 2012 03:37pm
Just one question Ms. Asma Jehangir. Did Gilani refuse to carry out supreme courts orders or not ?
Muhammad Ahmed Mufti May 22, 2012 04:18pm
Pakistan is a country where there is no tradition of resignations on failure. In fact people get promoted on failures. There are too many examples but I will list just a few: Ayub Khan and et. al. not resigning after failed operation Gibraltar. Yahya Khan not resigning after losing half of the country, Zia not resigning after losing Siachin. BB not giving up politics after being convicted by Swiss courts in corruption cases and proof that Surrey palace belonged to Zardaris. General Pasha and Keyani not resigning after failing to detect OBL on Pakistani soil and failing to detect US aggression. The Naval chief not resigning after the attack and failure on Mehran base. So where did PM Gilani go wrong? Why should he resign. I think by Pakistani standards he should run for another term.
Syed A. Zafar May 22, 2012 04:29pm
Hey fox! It is of no use having arguments on whether the lioness of the jungle lays eggs or delivers babies. It is the queen of the kings who decides what is good for the jungle. Once upon a time a king of the queen said " I swear upon God, when CJ will be reinstated every problem of Pakistan will go away" O yes, Can't we see, every problem of Pakistan is gone and our judiciary is as independent and clean as one can imagine. I bet this kind of pre decided divine justice will continue till another messiah from right wing extremists like Zia-ul Haque and Sons (most probably IK this time) will be installed. The bottom line is: It is all about right wing agenda. It was nothing to do with Mr. Musharraf, his uniform or dictatorship. If it was against dictatorship, Zia and others of the land of pure would not have been their hero. Same is the case with the democratically elected government now, it is meeting its fate. Attorney Tauseef has rightly said in his comment that "The arbitrary, broad powers of judiciary should be curtailed. No judiciary in any democratic country has been given such wide and huge powers, such as appointing their own judges and ordering and deciding on political and economic and non-judicial issues pursuant to its ridiculous suo motto powers etc, etc." Although, I do not like PPP, but, it is being a democratically elected government and the only party which is nationwide, deserves the right to complete its tenure without interference. However, in my opinion, PPP should have taken the stand from the very beginning instead of becoming wet cat, blackmailed and controlled by the opposition and institutions. If PPP has to survive, it has to get back to its roots (masses), restructure itself, avoid mom and pap family politics and show its political strength from every province immediately. Otherwise it will be history.
Omar May 22, 2012 05:41pm
Just a '' Get Out" command would not let you get out of Zia syndrome respected Mr. Awan. Many a deep wrongs have been done to this nation by Zia.
Mustafa Razavi May 22, 2012 07:12pm
Hardly anybody is working for democracy in the entire world. Almost all "supporters" of "democracy" expect a certain outcome from "democracy" and that is what they really support.
Mustafa Razavi May 22, 2012 07:22pm
Agree with Tausif that our judiciary is trying to hijack the government through Suo-Moto-Cracy. This provision in the law is contrary to the principle of separation of power between the three branches of the government and is meant for exceedingly sparing use. The justices cannot take a Suo Moto action against a waiter if he didn't put enough cream in their coffee.
Aftab Qureshi May 22, 2012 07:25pm
Asma's argumentation is brilliant. But she has provided no clues on how the law and judicial machinery could compel the Government to make the needed referral to the Swiss.
Mustafa Razavi May 22, 2012 07:29pm
"No judiciary in any democratic country has been given such wide and huge powers." That is indeed very true but the flip side of the coin is that in those countries the candidates from the ruling parties cannot slap election officers. The sad truth is that it is not in our national character to accept any limits on our power. It is true about our police, lawyers, courts, media, businessmen, doctors, nurses, school owners and journalists.
Zafar Kalanauri May 22, 2012 08:01pm
I cold not agree more. Thought provoking and indepth anaylisis by Asma.
logic Europe May 22, 2012 09:34pm
Asma , the lawyers and judges are not the public ,the public will bring PPP back to power another curse for Pakistan ,corrupt courts and lawyers, every one hates and fears them
Hamid Abbasi May 22, 2012 09:47pm
Ms.Jahangir, Talking about The Articles 63(g) and 58 (2)b and so forth pioneered by Genl.Zia is much debatable even among the fraternity of your professionals.I accept that those articles have changed the complexion of our constitution.May I humbly suggest for a 'Magna Carta',you being a strong activist could spearhead befittingly,don't worry I will follow your foot steps holding a sledge and hammer. Lastly ,"Laws are honoured more in breach than in observance",I unquote. Hamid Abbasi
miramshah May 22, 2012 10:17pm
how do you knowwhat she wants?
Murtaza May 22, 2012 11:35pm
Extremely well directed article, that the current Judiciary is using the Constitutional Amendment introduced by the General Zia. However unfortunate thing is when Asma was fighting against the dictatorship of Zia, Gillani was a member his Majlis-e-Shoora and it he who supported these constitutional amendments in 1985. I guess she forgot mention this important point in her article. Now why would this be wrong if Judges used this against the PM? It is constitutional right of the judges to interpret the constitution, if not the judges then who will interpret the constitution? We have extreme respect for Asma Jahngir but I cannot class this article as biased which is missing important facts.
Murtaza May 22, 2012 11:41pm
Dear Mr. Awan, I completely agree with you, what Asma forgot to state in her article was that this Amendment was approved by Majlis-e-Shoora of Zia and PM Gillani was a member of that Majlis-e-Shoora and supported this amendment in 1985.
Saeed Rahmani May 23, 2012 02:18am
Ms. Asma Jahangir has analysed the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,after the ammendments made to it by powerful Dictators like General Zia & General Musharraf,and this Parliament's efforts through the 18th Ammendment to rid it of some of the muck inserted into it by self-appointed Presidents & Chief Executives,who were granted legitimacy by the judiciary who would rather obey a Usurper than leave theiir jobs,and who would foreswear their solemn oaths to preserve. protect and defend the Constitution and willigly make new Oaths to abide by the Proclamation of Emergency & P.C.O. of October 14,1999.and make oaths as given in Oath of (Office) Order,200. What I would like to add here is a question,"Souldnt those who break their solemn oaths at the time of assuming their high offices,be also consideed perjurers?"
A Sheikh May 23, 2012 02:46am
Thank you Dawn, thank you Asma.
@RKzoy May 23, 2012 08:14am
This nation doesn't want to know their infections. They are interested in abating the symptoms only. Hats off to Asma Gee.
Wajid Maqsood Jun 19, 2012 11:34am
No one should be given immunity from the law. Article 63(g) although introduced by a dictator, it was necessary. Politicians are the people who can say or do anything-speak against any institution of the state just for their own political interests. If we observe carefully the comments of most of our politicians, it becomes clear that they are without an ideology. They strive only for power and do whatever necessary. Therefore, all their statements should be judged strictly by a more strict law than article 63(g). Anyone, who says anything which harms Pakistan or its institutions, should not only be disqualified-but also punished. We can not oppose article 63(g) on the basis that it was introduced by a dictator.
Wajid Maqsood Jun 19, 2012 12:36pm
We expect democracy from political system. If it were democracy, they would have gone before failing this badly. Democracy will ensure our will to prevail-the will of the people of Pakistan
Wajid Maqsood Jun 19, 2012 12:33pm
No country requires them. Our country needs them. It is necessary here. We will evolve this way