THIS is with reference to the editorial “Musharraf’s sentence” (Jan 11). Like a vast majority of the country and lovers of justice, I appreciate the remarks that “… there should be an honest appraisal of history: Pervez Musharraf was not the first military strongman to rule Pakistan, though it is hoped he will be the last”.

From Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq, the tale has been very well documented, and the same is true of the role played by some of the learned jurists in valida-ting military rule, using the crutches of the so-called doctrine of necessity.

Even after the separation of one wing of the country, which was a unique case of a majority moving away from a minority, no lesson was learned and the judiciary kept validating subsequent military rules. Never a dictator was questioned for his unconstitutional act of abrogating the Constitution during his lifetime, nor were his subsequent acts overruled.

The dismissal of the government of prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo was declared unconstitutional only when Zia had crossed over to eternity. It is only fair to believe that had the general not met with the unfortunate air crash, his act of dismissing the government would have been validated.

More than the martial laws, the use of the doctrine of necessity by the higher judiciary has caused tremendous harm to the democratic institutions of the country, resulting in almost a complete breakdown of constitutional and democratic norms and traditions.

Musharraf ruled the country with an iron hand and succeeded to some extent in introducing certain reforms. This does not mean that his act of toppling an elected government can be justified, but, surprisingly, he was awarded the death penalty not on toppling an elected government illegally, but on imposing ‘emergency rule’ much later in his tenure after he had been ‘elected’ the country’s president by parliament. Which of the two is the greater sin? The legal fraternity must find out the answer and guide the public discourse in this critical regard.

Ayub, Yahya and Zia committed the same sin as did Musharraf. If anything, Musharraf was the only dictator who actually shed his uniform with the aim of reconciliation.

What is the rationale, if any, behind the decision to punish Musharraf, and to let all others ‘rest in peace’? Why could Musharraf not enjoy the fruits of the doctrine of necessity?

These are critical questuions agitating the mind of many. There can be many conjectures in this regard, but probably history will be the best judge. Let us all wait for the verdict that really matters.

Aamir Aqil
Lahore

Published in Dawn, January 31st, 2024