Historic or amnestic?

What the 'historic' judgement of July 31 has done is to frenzied cry, both verbal and written, against General Pervez Musharraf. The case was all about sorting out judges who were accused of taking an oath they should not have taken, so obviously dragged in had to be Musharraf. Now widely vilified for his insane actions of 2007, in 1999 when he dislodged a sitting prime minister overcome by a spate of madness, Musharraf was welcomed in with immense fanfare and the usual unedifying exhibition of overweight grown men stuffing each others' mouths with sweetmeats - the national form of celebration. But there is, in the third world, nothing unusual in prostration before the rising sun and vilification when it sets. This is of course not the first 'historic' judgement to be handed down - we have had many before, prominent amongst them the 1972 Asma Jehangir case, the 1977 Nusrat Bhutto, case, and the 1988 Haji Saifullah case, all of which were 'hailed' as having eliminated military adventurism. Then we have the 'historic' 1993 Nawaz Sharif case which was supposed to end the practice of presidential dismissals of governments and assemblies. Two dismissals followed it in 1996 and 1999. As for the sorting out of the judiciary, well, we had the 'historic' 1996 Al-Jihad case, followed by the 'historic' 1997 Asad Ali Shah case. What has been pointed out by many fellow columnists, bloggers and commentators on the net, here and abroad, is a fact that needs to be reiterated again and again so that perspective is not entirely lost when it comes to oaths taken under the 2007 PCO and Musharraf's "unconstitutional, unauthorised and without legal basis" imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. We need to know the obvious glaring difference between this and the dismissal of government and assemblies in 1999 by the same Musharraf which was given full legal coverage by the Supreme Court in the 2000 Zafar Ali Shah case. Was it constitutional, authorised and with legal basis? From every corner of the media (freed by Musharraf, but now bent on vendetta) come calls for the trial of the general for high treason under Article 6 of the constitution. The question arises: on October 3, 2007 did Musharraf abrogate or subvert the constitution? He overthrew no government, he dismissed no assembly, he consigned no constitution to the trash can. And in whatever he did, if we are to believe the text of the emergency order, he was aided and abetted by a goodly number of civil and military luminaries, many of whom are with us in high office and sitting in our National Assembly. Clarification is desperately called for if we are to piece together the events of eight years of this country's life. The CJP could enlighten us on one other matter that was widely reported in the national press. Seven weeks prior to the July 31 verdict, he met in his office US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, a meeting which reportedly took place at the request of Mr Holbrooke and on the advice of the foreign office. What transpired at this meeting? And one must ask the honourable CJP, in the light of the unbalanced comments in the media that have followed, what was his purpose in recounting, during the hearings of the end of July, the saga of Oliver Cromwell? What were the implications of this reference? The writer is a freelance columnist E-mail: jilani.amina@gmail.com