John Ruskin (1819-1900), British social reformer, man of liberal thought, author and artist, in the second half of the 19th century advocated for his country a system of national education.

As he put it, "Education does not mean teaching people what they do not know. It is a painful, continual and difficult task to be done by kindness, by watching, by warning, by precept and by praise, but above all - by example."

President General Pervez Musharraf is in the throes of attempting to bring about a social revolution in his country, and ours, through a term coined by him - enlightened moderation. Both these words are addictive to education, education and more education, without which they cannot make any foray into the present national mindset. Now, the general, having spent a few of his formative years in enlightened Turkey which pursues a moderate path, could do far worse than take today's Turkey as his example. To quote from The Economist of November 27: "From next year, parliament will be able to probe the armed forces' budget. This year, spending on education exceeded that on defence, another first. Perhaps more extraordinary than the changes themselves is that the men in uniform have accepted them." Musharraf must know the present Turkish army chief, General Hilmi Ozkok, a committed democrat and modernizer, who carefully listens to his subordinates who, like him, speak out frankly against religious militancy and separatist violence.

The fact is that it is education and education alone which can conquer ignorance and misplaced blind faith. And it is not easy to educate some 159 million people.

Eight years ago, on November 21, 1996, Assistant Professor Aquila Ismail, president of the Nadirshaw Eduljee Dinshaw University of Engineering and Technology (NED) teachers' association, reported to Chancellor Kamal Azfar and informed him that some students had been fraudulently passed. Involved in the matter, amongst others, were certain professors of the NED. On December 10, Engineer Abul Kalam assumed the office of vice-chancellor. He has a conscience, is a strict disciplinarian, answers his own telephone on the first ring and is at his desk each morning at 0820 hours. He also took up the matter with the chancellor.

Arguments, syndicate meetings, resolutions, High Court and Supreme Court decisions followed. The syndicate and the vice-chancellor were on the losing side and the VC signed the degrees as ordered by the court, with an endorsement thereon.

Seven students went back to the Sindh High Court and filed an application for contempt of court. A decision was handed down on May 15, 2001, by Justices Sabihuddin Ahmed and S Ali Aslam Jafri, from which I quote:

"3) After the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court the Vice-Chancellor decided to issue degrees to the petitioners but with specific endorsement to the following effect: 'Degree awarded in compliance with the Sindh High Court decision dated 22.2.2000 on CP D-42/99.'

"This decision was approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 23.1.2001. Mr Amir Hani Muslim, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of the above application has argued that the endorsement made on the degree was in violation of the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court and amounted to defiance of its authority on the part of the Vice-Chancellor as well as the members of the Syndicate passing the above resolution. Apart from directing notice to the alleged contemners, we also issued notice to the learned AG Sindh [Raja Qureshi] to address the Court.

"4) Before proceeding further we would like to observer that the learned Advocate -General appearing at our request, instead of addressing us on the legal aspects of the controversy, came up with a suggestion whereby the dispute could be resolved in a fair and amicable manner. He stated upon instructions from the Governor of the Province, who is also Chancellor of the University, that the disputed answer books may be forwarded to an independent body of examiners whose decision may be treated as final. We had adjourned the matter to enable all the parties to consider the merits of the proposal and while Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned counsel for the alleged contemners, gave his unqualified consent, Mr Amir Hani Muslim was not prepared to accept it and stressed that the matter should be considered by the Court from the limited standpoint of the exercise of contempt jurisdiction and the application be decided on its own merits.

"5) We are indeed conscious of the fact that the endorsement on the degrees might possibly lead to some unpalatable consequences for the petitioners and were therefore inclined to persuade them to agree to a fair and mutually acceptable solution. Nevertheless, since we have been called upon to decide the matter strictly within the parameters of the contempt jurisdiction, we have to only consider whether such an endorsement made on the degree amounts to defiance of the authority of the Court. It is well settled that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked by parties to settle their private scores.

"6) Mr Muslim relied upon a format of the degree contained in Rule 3.14 and emphatically argued that no degree containing any endorsement other than that provided in such format could be made. With profound respects we find little force in this contention in as much as Section 50(2) of the NED University Act 1977 itself empowers the Syndicate to direct any authority of the University to amend any such Rule and therefore it is difficult to question a direction of the Syndicate requiring award of degrees in a format other than the one contained in the existing format.

"7) On the other hand, Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned counsel or the alleged contemners, argued that in the event the petitioners were aggrieved by the endorsement made in the degrees they might have an independent cause of action against the University but could not invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court unless it was shown that the order of the Court had been contumaciously flouted. Learned counsel placed reliance, inter alia, upon the following observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bahwal alias Bhaloo vs The State (PLD 1962 SC 476):...

"8) In any event, we are of the view that irrespective of the consequences that such degrees may have for the petitioners which learned counsel himself did not want us to consider, strictly from the standpoint of contempt jurisdiction all that has to be considered is whether the order of the Court has been deliberately flouted. Admittedly, the degrees were issued pursuant to such orders and therefore it cannot be said that they were disobeyed. Obviously, this Court cannot restrain somebody from saying that he has acted pursuant to a Court order, though this may even involve his personal tacit reservations as to its correctness. What the law requires is obedience and not mental acceptance of orders of the Court. As a famous American Supreme Court judge put it, 'we are final not because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.'

"9) Mr Zahur Illahi vs Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD 1975 SC 383) proceedings for contempt were invoked on the basis of the following statement of the prime minister ... Holding that no occasion for proceedings in contempt arose, the Court observed: 'The Prime Minister was merely justifying his action in the speech complained of, in which incidentally he has said that if the court decides otherwise it will be his decision or of the public and the responsibility for the decision will be of the Court. He has said nothing new. Nor is this a threat to the Court. The responsibility of a decision made by the Court is always of the Court and the Court does not shirk this responsibility.'

"Respectfully following the above observations and keeping in view the well-settled principle that contempt jurisdiction ought to be sparingly exercised and should not be allowed to be used for settling private scores, we would dismiss this application."

It did not end there. The students filed a civil petition for leave to appeal (559-K/01) which was heard on October 20 2004 in the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Justices Javed Iqbal and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, and dismissed. My friend Makhdoom has been appointed attorney-general of Pakistan, so friend Barrister Abdul Hafiz Pirzada represented NED.

He charged a whopping fee, at which I requested that he follow the "example" of those great barristers Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Sir Jamshedji Kanga who never charged fees for representing institutions of learning. With great gravitas, Hafiz said he would follow their example, and he would return to the university a substantial portion of what he had been paid. There is hope.