A time to amend the oaths?

Amend oaths to include some kind punitive clause in which oath-taker is punished for failing to perform his duty?

There is something rather solemn and formal about taking an oath — especially when it is accompanied by the equally sombre gesture of placing a hand on the holy book prescribed by one’s religion. The only time I took what could possibly be passed off as a firm commitment was when I was asked to represent my boarding school in a boxing match against a rival institution. After the grave undertaking had been given about upholding the rules and spirit of the Marquis of Queensbury, the sports master turned to me and said in a conspiratorial whisper, “Never mind all this twaddle about not hitting below the belt, Sonny, just make sure you enter the ring and give the beggar a bloody nose in the second round.”

Now it is common knowledge that people are taking oaths in our country all the time, whether or not an election has taken place. This includes presidents, prime ministers, judges and members of the armed forces who swear to uphold the Constitution and serve the country without fear or favour. During bouts of democracy, some politicians have taken the same oath a number of times, either in the same party or by switching loyalties. These people appear to be in possession of long-term season tickets, which allow them repeated entry into the members’ enclosure where they enjoy a sinecure.



The nagging question here is: what happens when an incumbent breaks his or her oath? Well, the stock answer in such cases is “Just don’t vote for the fellow or the party next time.” I am sure you will agree this is a gray area, because it isn’t just some of the elected representatives that have been screwing up but also civilian administrations. If everybody had fulfilled his or her obligations, the country wouldn’t be in such an unholy mess. Of course, when corrupt politicians or government officers overdo it and become overachievers in the malpractices department, there is always the danger that the courts might find out and clobber them. But more often than not, they get away with it.

Now, what is the resident cynic expected to do when an oath uttered in all solemnity is broken at the highest level of government? If you’ve been reading so far, you will know I am pointing an accusing finger at a former president, who usurped absolute power while in uniform. When General (retd) Pervez Musharraf joined the army, he must have taken the oath reserved for members of the armed forces, which can be found under Article 244 of the third schedule of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The crucial phrase being “will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever”.

However, one doesn’t have to go so far up the pecking order to discover how oaths are not kept by governors, chief ministers and chief secretaries of various provinces. Newspapers are littered with accounts of station house officers in the rural hinterland refusing to file a First Information Report on complaints lodged by peasants, ostensibly because of alleged pressure from the local landlord or resident bully. These range from stealing a buffalo to kidnapping and rape. Now, wouldn’t it be more meaningful if steps are taken to amend all oaths to include some kind of inbuilt punitive clause in which an oath-taker agrees on oath to be punished for failing to perform his duty? Of course, this could never happen in Pakistan. But there’s no harm in suggesting it.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 16^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.