The circus, the tamasha

Pakistan is unique in the world in requiring proficiency in Scriptures as qualification for standing in the elections.

In extolling the seamless way in which the caretakers have taken over after the elected governments left office to pave way for the elections, I had noted in this space just last week that we had shown the world that “we are not a bunch of monkeys but a good and sagacious people who need a chance to shape our own destiny ... ”.

Just one week later, in keeping with our own belief that we are a very unique people, and living up to our reputation as a country that can do anything at any time leaving the rest of the world stunned and aghast, we see our nomination process degenerate to a veritable circus.

We see our media, particularly the Ghairatmand parts of it, tastelessly broadcast clips of candidates facing bizarre questions from the returning officers vetting the nomination forms of the candidates. In what appears to be an examination of how much of the Scriptures the candidate has mugged up, mockery is being made of what should be a process of determining whether the person concerned is good citizen enough to sit in the legislature.

Instead of considering whether he is a law-abiding citizen; if he pays his bills or is a defaulter, the emphasis is on whether or not the candidate knows various duas and verses of the Holy Quran. Of course, as in other matters such as having the graduation rule for prospective candidates, a singularly anti-democratic rule thrust down this country’s throat by an army dictator, Pakistan is unique in the world in requiring proficiency in the Scriptures as a qualification for standing in the elections.

Indeed, the televised question to a Sindhi candidate as to whether he knew the national anthem was ludicrous in the extreme, too. The anthem as we know is mostly in the Persian language and to ask a Sindhi to say it in proper order is silly and of absolutely no currency in determining whether he is suitable for offering himself as a candidate in the elections.

While on the subject of elections, let me also oppose vehemently the inclusion of the “None of the Above” box in the ballot papers. People who do not want to vote normally do not go to vote anyway, or they leave their ballot papers blank: why insert this new “choice”? To show up democracy?

I have said it before and will say it again: Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim is one of the people I admire most in the world; he is upstanding and fair-minded and has an excellent intellect. But why has he still got people like Aslam Khan hanging on to high offices in the ECP? I saw him on some talk show on television the other day, not knowing at the time who he was, and he seemed to me to be an extreme right wing politician rather than an official of the ECP.

It was later that I found that he was a veteran of many a referendum to legitimise army dictators, etcetera. Is there little wonder that the ballot papers are now to have this new box? Also, who is the tall, bearded gent who was standing behind the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) the day he was announcing the names of the caretaker PM and who constantly corrected the CEC whenever he faltered or misread the text?

Who does not misread? Who does not falter or pause while reading something? The man actually tripped up the CEC several times needlessly, for Justice (retd) Fakhruddin could have corrected himself, being the well-spoken eminence that he is. If asking someone if he knows the national anthem backwards is par for the course, perhaps a purge in the ECP before the elections?

And so, to the Commando who was “somehow a little insulted, a little humiliated”, when he had to stand up as the judge entered the courtroom during his appearance in the Sindh High Court for extension of his protective bail. By golly, the man is not only dheet, he also has tonnes of brass.

Let excerpts from my piece in Dawn of August 18, 2009 speak: “What is so special about an army general anyway? Let us immediately recall the tribulations of an elected president and prime minister by the name of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was treated most shabbily and most disgracefully not only in jail, but also during his appearances in the court of Maulvi Mushtaq who was avowedly Bhutto’s enemy. Let us not forget that when Bhutto one day complained that he did not have confidence in Maulvi Mushtaq, he shouted at him to ‘Stand up, and keep standing!’

“When Bhutto protested, Maulvi Mushtaq again roared ‘Remove his chair’ and added words to the effect, ‘You are no longer president or prime minister; if you do not shut up I have the authority to have you whipped in jail!’ Let us remember that Bhutto was made to stand throughout the proceedings of that day. So, why should we care that Musharraf is a former COAS, and how the army (always read ‘high command’ or ‘brass hats’ whenever I invoke the name of the army for what do the junior ranks have to do with their crimes?) will take it? Let the generals take it as they will, for they must learn, once and for all, that they are merely sub-department heads of yet another department of the government.

“Let’s not forget the tribulations of another elected prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who was thrown out of office by the army acting at the behest of the Commando and his rufaqaa and then, quite disgracefully, locked up in Attock Fort before being taken in shackles and chains to Karachi to stand trial for that so-called hijacking ...

“Let us also not forget that when Nawaz Sharif attempted to come back to Pakistan after being expressly allowed by the Supreme Court, he was treated most shamefully and was sent back to Saudi Arabia in disgraceful fashion. If the establishment, handmaiden to the generals and the ‘agencies’, can behave so with democratically elected leaders, why should the Commando be let off the hook?”

Indeed, why?

By golly, what dheetpuna!

Published in The Express Tribune, April 5^th, 2013.