|
Connecting The Wrong Dots On
Musharraf's Trial
Pakistani ruling elite’s mind is wicked up to
the extent of evilness of devil. As talks about Musharraf’s
trial are gaining momentum in the country so are the arguments
of pro Musharraf members of the ruling elite.
In this regard, the simplest argument being
made is: Musharraf’s trial is not a peoples’ issue. Peoples’
issues are lentils, cooking oil, sugar and flour. This argument
is being voiced by people with soft stand on Musharraf. PPP is
particularly very articulate about this argument. PPP leadership
simply denies that its members won election of February 18 on
the basis of anti Musharraf sentiments.
Those who consider lentils, cooking oil,
sugar and flour more important issue than Musharraf's trial they
discard all those surveys in which people of Pakistan
overwhelmingly support punishing Musharraf for the violation of
the constitution.
The harshest argument against Musharraf's
trial comes from MQM and people of their elk. They argue, under
article 6 Musharraf’s trial is simply not possible because its
clause B qualify thousands of others for trial under treason.
The crux of their argument is: forget about Musharraf’s trial.
Let him go his way and let others go their way.
The simple question to both sides is: what is
the connection between the issues of lentils, cooking oil and
flour and Musharraf's trial?
Musharraf committed a crime, which all sides
agree that he did, then what is wrong in going ahead with his
trial?
Sparing Musharraf from trial because there
are issues of lentils, cooking oil, sugar and flour is like
connecting two things which in reality have no connection.
Musharraf’s trial is not going to solve or make the issue of
lentils, cooking oil, sugar and flour more complicated. Trial or
no trial government will have to deal with the issue of lentils,
cooking oil sugar and flour one way or the other.
Similar is true about the harsher argument:
Spare Musharraf from trial because according to some hundreds
and according to others thousands of others qualify for trial
under the clause B of the article 6 as abettors.
They are wickedly misinterpreting the term
abettor. By definition, abettors are the only people who
conspired with the person who violated the article 6 of the
constitution. Those who just obeyed his orders because he was
their boss they did not abet him in the act of violating article
6. They simply obeyed his orders.
Therefore, talking about hundreds and
thousands of other’s is a pure nonsense. For example, if general
Musharraf did not talk to general Kiyani about emergency and
general Kiyani did not take any steps to enforce his emergency,
general Kiyani does not qualify as abettor.
Another example, General Musharraf talked to
Chaudhry Shujaat about imposition of emergency. Chaudhry Shujaat
advised him not to impose emergency, but general Musharraf went
ahead and imposed emergency, in this case, Chaudhry Shujaat also
does not qualify as an abettor because he did not agree to the
idea of imposition of emergency.
Similarly, the people who worked with general
Musharraf in various capacities as part of bureaucracy they also
do not qualify in the definition of abettors. However, all those
who talked and acquiesced with general Musharraf for imposition
of emergency before the act took place, they do qualify to be
included in abettors' list, and it would be reasonable to
believe that their number is not in hundreds, they are fewer
than 10 people. Therefore, connecting wrong dots in order to
spare Musharraf from trial is mockery of rule of law and
treacherousness on the part of Musharraf sympathizers.
Musharraf must go for trial and he must face
the consequences of his crimes against the state, the
constitution and people of Pakistan.
And the wicked minds, who are trying to
protect a criminal through their wicked arguments, must keep
their poisonous tongues inside their cheeks. They should not
offend the people to the extent that people are forced to move
against them too along with Musharraf.
| 
