“GHADDARI”, CONSTITUTION AND CHAUDHRY SHUJAAT

In the recent past during initial phase of Musharraf’s trial, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain had launched a campaign to remove the word “Ghaddari (High Treason)” from Article 6 of the Constitution and other related provisions as according to him, firstly, the offence envisaged therein did not fit in the universally legislated and interpreted definition of treason or “high treason” and secondly that to name an ex-Army Chief of a nuclear power as Ghaddar (High Traitor), did not sound pleasant in its over all impact. Any one, disagreeing with Mr. Shujaat may say, a Ghaddar having committed the offence of Ghaddari shall by all means be named and called Ghaddar irrespective of the position he held earlier! Nevertheless, the first part of his preposition has raised an academic and legal question regarding exact literal and legal meaning and definition of Ghaddari (High Treason) and to apply the same in its all four corners on the acts of treason allegedly committed by Parvez Musharraf.

The question being purely of an academic and legal nature, calls for exploring the exact literal and legal meaning of Ghaddari and to discriminate the same from Baghawat (Rebellion, Insurgence or Mutiny), if the two are not synonyms as, very often they seem to be highly mixed up and confusing. Everybody knows that in many cases, Baghis from one group are termed as Ghaddar by the other. Ghaddar of the other is Hero or Baghi Hero of the first one. Liberation movement in India in 1857 was termed as GHADAR by the British Empire but a book was written on it titled as ASBAB-E-BAGHAWAT-E-HIND. Likewise Subhash Chandra Boss and Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman find their place in their capacity as such in the recent past history of the sub-continent. One called them Ghaddar and the other as Hero!

The difficulty for every one to discriminate and differentiate between the two words or terms is their ordinary dictionary meaning. In Urdu, the two words Baghawat and Ghaddari do carry their distinct meaning but in English, several words like treason, disloyalty, insurgence, rebellion, betrayal, treachery etc., are available but none of them clearly separates Ghaddari from Baghawat.

Baghawat means an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted GOVERNMENT through the use of subversion and armed conflict while Ghaddari has no concern with the GOVERNMENT. Ghaddari in its political aspect is an act of subversion against the STATE whether armed or not. Simultaneously it can even be against an individual including a person in authority. As against this, Baghawat can hardly be against individuals. Very carefully speaking, Ghaddari may be described as a surreptitious betrayal in a conspiring manner of the confidence of a person who has been persistently made to have firm faith in the traitor through his words and conduct.

Ghaddari in England has been considered as the crime of disloyalty to the Crown, persons carrying his orders, family members of the King, levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies and giving them aid or comfort. These all constitute one single word “State” because in England King is State and not Government.

An act of Ghaddari must necessarily endanger the security of the State and not the government. History shows that Ghaddari being the most serious of offences, was often met with extraordinary punishment (hanging, drawing and quartering), because it threatened the “security of the state”.

                                                                                        

It may be interesting to note that in England, the offence of Ghaddari is limited to the disloyalty to the Crown or the State; it has nothing to do with the constitution as there is no written constitution of the British Empire. Ghaddari is therefore different from Baghawat for the above among many other reasons. One more reason however needs to be added that Ghaddari is always and every where considered the most heinous of offences while Baghawat, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is not necessarily to be taken in a bad sense as the same, though extralegal, may be just and timely in itself.

Now, in the light of the above discussion, we revert back to the earlier referred campaign of Ch. Shujaat to remove or substitute the words HIGH TREASON from Article 6 of the constitution. If Ghaddari or for convenience sake, treason, was meant as an act of subversion against the State to the extent of endangering its security or joining hands with its enemies then I am afraid, both the acts of Parvez Musharraf i.e. of 12th October and 3rd November can hardly fit in the above universally admitted definition of treason. I am speaking of the global definition of the same and not as defined in our constitution. The definition of treason in our constitution has been made in the following words:

Article 6.

High treason. (1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

It is eminently explicit that the above definition does not speak of something that might endanger the security of the State or empower or strengthen the enemies of the State or even over-throwing a legally constituted government of the State. It has imported and added an altogether new definition to the term “treason” confining it to offences against “constitution” and not against the State or the Government.

State remains one and the same though it may change its size and shape. Governments change frequently. Constitutions are made by legislature. Parliament besides creating constitution has the power to amend the same and the Apex Court supervises such amendments to satisfy itself as to whether the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the fundamental spirit and basic structure of the constitution. Our lawmakers, while formulating Article 6, brought the Constitution at par with the State. No doubt an offence against constitution is by all means an offence but endangering the security of the State or joining hands with its enemies is an offence far more grave and heinous. This act of our lawmakers to include the offences against Constitution in the definition of “high treason” seems, if not highly at least a bit exaggerated and in conflict with the over all admitted definition of the same.

Ch. Shujaat wanted to bring a balance in the Constitution and insert therein clear and distinct definitions of offences against the State and offences against the Constitution. Intention of Ch. Shujaat appeared bonafide and his plea had force that we must improve our Constitution and endeavor to make it a fool proof document. His drive therefore should not have been so stretched as to give it a meaning of attempting or aiding to get the General acquitted for, this is not the only case in which Musharraf is involved. This is no secret that he is still accountable in many other high profile cases including assassination of Shaheed Mohtarema Benazir Bhutto and Shaheed Akbar Bugti and in those cases, the proposed amendment in constitution will be of no advantage to him. Provision for amendments is there in the Constitution so what if we ponder a little over what Ch. Shujaat was saying and think upon it in the greater interest of the State and Constitution; but for this, we’ll have to think from our minds and not from our hearts!

MQM DEMANDS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS IN SINDH

MQM leader Altaf Hussain has very recently come out with a proposal of establishing more than one administrative units in Sindh. Most of the people have termed it as a separatist demand or an attempt to divide Sindh. One must wonder how an act of creating administrative units in a province can amount to its division. If we can recall from the study of history, it is a process of evolution. No doubt, the name and identification of Sindh exists on the pages of history since unknown ancient times yet it is a reality that upto a little before partition, there was no province of Sindh in British Empire and till 1937 it was “administratively” attached with Bombay. As provinces are administrative units of a federation, likewise divisions and districts are administrative units of a province. To ensure itself of the process of evolution, one can count the number of divisions and districts in Sindh from the year 1947 till date. Why 1947? Just go back to 1972, after fall of Dacca and you will find just three divisions and only 11 districts in Sindh. Today there are 5 divisions and almost 28 districts therein. Did this increase in administrative units, divide Sindh? This evolutionary process is an act of shaping or reshaping the province but not resizing it as most people think will happen if MQM demand is accepted. If more administrative units are created or some of the earlier are abolished or an altogether new shape of administrative units in Sindh is introduced to overcome and eliminate social, economical, racial, ethnic, linguistic or sectarian differences and conflicts, that will be in accordance with the process of evolution and never result in geographical distribution of Sindh as we have experienced in the earlier years.

It is not that I am advocating the cause of MQM. In fact, as back as on 18^th November 2012, when I newly joined facebook, my first post was almost on the same subject. I am reproducing the same below for the perusal of my friends.

18^th November 2012

A LITTLE THOUGHT REQUIRED!

We have drawn following prepositions from our experience of going or passing through constitutional history of Pakistan, observations, comparative study of the constitutions and laws of alike countries etc:

1. Pakistan being a federation requires a strong centre coupled with maximum autonomy of its federating units to remove the feeling and impression of a rather OPPRESSIVE and not simply a STRONG centre.

2. Autonomy of federating units means TRULY, transition of power to the lowest possible level of governance irrespective the idea introduced by whom for, being Muslims we believe in “Listen what is being said without any favour or bias for the person who says”.

3. Earlier, prior to 1973 we had uni-cameral legislature I(National Assembly alone) with two-stage administration i,e. federal and provincial governments and two-level assemblies i.e. National and Provincial Assemblies.. After 1973, we opted for bi-cameral legislature I(National Assembly and Senate) with the same two-stage administration i,e. federal and provincial governments and the same two-level assemblies i.e. National and Provincial Assemblies. In the last regime, a further change was introduced by maintaining the bi-cameral legislature but enhancing the administrative stages from two to three i.e. in the shape of federal, provincial and district governments and two-level assemblies to three i.e. National, Provincial and District Assemblies.

4. Throughout the above exercise, maintaining and bringing about “Democracy” and “Good Governance” were always acclaimed as the central idea behind.

5. Democracy denies all forms of dictatorship, be that even a democratic dictatorship. A balanced assembly therefore with a strong opposition is an integral and inseparable part of democracy.

6. Governance means an absolute, unambiguous, uninterrupted and unshared power to rule.

Now arise certain questions. All are invited to go through the same as given below, give a thought, ponder over and as a result, share your views by answering these questions, adding more and suggesting strategic solutions to the issues emerging through the same. Truth is always bitter. No matter how harsh and unwanted your views may appear to others, please come up with the sole truth you may find within yourself!

1. Does there appear any sense in keeping together and simultaneously, provincial and district assemblies along with provincial and district governments?

a. Doesn’t it amount to creating a parallel system of governance?
b. Doesn’t that provide room for interrupting into each others domain and creating confusion in government functionaries?
c. Doesn’t such parallel system of governance lead us to a state of sheer bad governance?

2. If the objective of transition of power to the lowest level can be achieved only through formation of district assemblies and governments, what is the need then to keep into existence the provincial assemblies and governments?

3. Do we have enough courage either to give up the idea of transition of power to the lowest level through formation of district assemblies and governments or to dissolve the provincial assemblies and governments having lost their importance as such?

a. In such a case, what will happen to the theory of provincial autonomy when there will be no provinces at all? Or
b. Can we treat the districts as the federating units of the federation in substitution of the provinces and vest into them the autonomy enshrined in the Constitution through recent amendments in the same?

4. Is the present size of districts throughout the country sufficient to give them the status of federating units?

5. Do the present district assemblies really carry and depict a democratic culture with a strong opposition in the House? Or the same are one-man/few-men show?

6. Have we, through all we have done, successfully achieved the objectives of transition of power to the lowest level, maintaining democracy and good governance? Or we do still need some fundamental and structural changes for the purpose? If yes, what?

کاش اقوامِ عالم موت کی دستک سُن سکیں-

ہم مسلمان بہت سادہ ہیں- کُرّہء ارض کے سینے پر مونگ دلتی یہودی لعنت کے ہاتھوں نہتّے فلسطینیوں کی موجودہ شہادت کو "یہودیت اور اِسلام" کا جھگڑا قرار دے کرہم پوُری دنیا کو اُس کی انسانی اور انسانیت پر مبنی تمام تر اخلاقی اور قانونی ذمہ داریوں سے پروانہء آزادی بخش رہے ہیں- ساری دنیا جانتی ہے کہ اسرائیل اور فلسطین میں کوئی تقابُل اور موازنہ نہیں ہے- غزہ پر موجودہ اسرائیلی حملے سرے سے کوئ جنگ نہیں- یہ دو ہم پلہ ملکوں کی لڑائی نہیں،انسانوں کے رُوپ میں چُھپے حد درجہ مسلح، طاقتور اور خونخوار اسرائیلی بھیڑیوں کے ہاتھوں دوسرے مُٹھی بھر اورتقریبا" نہتّے معصوم انسانوں کے خلاف جن کا ابتدائی جرم یہ ہے کہ وہ فلسطینی ہیں، ایک کُھلی دہشت گردی، بے گُناہ فلسطینیوں کا قتلِ عام اور اُن کی سوچی سمجھی نسل کُشی ہے- یہ جُرم انسانوں اور انسانیت کے خلاف کیا جانےوالا ایسا جُرم ہے جس پر صرف اسرائیل کا نہیں تمام اقوامِ عالم کا گریبان پکڑا جانا چاہیئے-  

 یہودی صرف اسلام دشمن نہیں وہ حقیقت میں انسانیت دشمن ھے- یہودی اپنی لڑائی شروع چاہے جہاں سے کرے، اُس کے مشن کا اختتام ہرغیر یہودی کے خاتمے میں پوشیدہ ہے- اقوامِ عالم نے آس حقیقت کو مان لینے میں تجاہلِ عارفانہ سے کام لیا لیکن جرمن قوم کے ایک ہر طرح سے مصلحت نا آشنا لیڈر ایڈولف ہٹلر نے نہ صرف اس حقیقت کا ادراک کیا بلکہ انسان اور انسانیت دشمنی کے غلیظ جُرم کی سزا کے طور پر یہودیوں کی بھرپور نسل کُشی کا آغازبھی کر دیا- تاریخ گواہ ہے کہ اگر ہٹلر اپنے دستِ سزا و قضا کو نہ روکتا تو آج روۓ زمین پر یہودی اور یہودیت کا نام و نشان تک نہ ھوتا-

کیا ہٹلر مسلمان تھا؟ کیا اُس کی جانِب سے یہودیوں کے خلاف برپا کیا جانے والا طوفانِ آہن و آتش اور اُن کو بے نام و نشان کردینے والی خوں آشامیاں "یہودیت اور اسلام" کی لڑائی کا حصّہ تھیں؟ کاش ہٹلر اپنا کام مکمّل کر دیتا اور جو سوچا    

تھا اُسے پُورا کر دیتا تو آج ساری دنیا اور پورا عالمِ اسلام یہودی فتنے سے نجات پا چُکا ہوتا-

 یہ حقیقت کہ یہودی ہر غیر یہودی کا دُشمن ہے، ہٹلر نے نہ صرف جان لی بلکہ اِس کے خلاف صف آرا بھی ہو گیا لیکن باقی غیر مسلم اقوامِ عالم اس حقیقت سے جانتے بّوجھتے انجان بنی رہیں- مقامِ افسوس یہ ہے کہ مُسلم اُمہ "یہودی اور یہودیت شناسی" کے اس تاریخی مقام اور موڑ پر پہونچ جانے کے باوجود خود کو "مذہبیت" کی تنگ ناۓ سے نکال کر "انسانیت" کے وسیع تر دھارے میں شامل کرنے میں پس و پیش اور تامّل سے کام لیتی رہی اور اس رد ّوقدح میں یہ اٹل  حقیقت تک فراموش کربیٹھی کہ اسلام اور انسانیت ایک دوسرے سے الگ الگ نہیں بلکہ خود انسانیت عین اسلام ہے-

ہم مسلمان، خاص طور پر پاکستانی مسلمان، آج بھی اس لڑائی کے اسباب اور مقاصد کو اُس کے منطقی انجام تک پہونچانے کے بجاۓ خود اپنے ہی مسلمان ممالک کے سربراہوں پر تلوار تانے بیٹھے ہیں- کوئی کہتا ہے اسرائیل کے خلاف اعلانِ جنگ کردو، کسی کو شکوہ ہے کہ میزائیل کیوں نہیں برساتے اور کوئی مردانگی اور غیرتِ اسلامی کے فقدان کا طعنہ دیتا ہے-  ہم صرف اپنے ہی بڑوں کے گریبانوں پر ہاتھ ڈالتے ہیں- اُن کا گلا کیوں نہیں پکڑتے جو دُنیا بھر میں امنِ عالم کے ٹھیکیدار بنے بیٹھے ہیں- انسانی حقوق کی پاسداری پر بات کرتے اُن کے گلے خشک نہیں ہوتے- اقوامِ متحدہ کے  CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS پر گھنٹوں تقریریں کرتے ہیں اور  WAR ON TERRORکی آڑ میں ہزاروں میل بلکہ سات سمندر پار جا کر نہ صرف فوجی جارحیت کرتے ہیں بلکہ ڈرون حملوں کے ذریعے بیگناہ عورتوں اور معصوم بچوں کا قتلِ عام بھی کرتے ہیں- ضرورت اس بات کی ہے کہ ہم عالمی ضمیر کو جھنجھوڑیں اور پوری دنیا سے سوال کریں کہ آنکھیں مُوندنے کا یہ عمل کب تک؟ پوری دنیا کو  باور کرائیں کہ وہ مان لے کہ اسرائیل کی موجودہ لڑائی "فلسطینی مسلمانوں" سے نہیں "صرف فلسطینیوں" سے ہے یا دوسرے لفظوں میں فلسطین میں مقیم "انسانوں" سے-  اُن انسانوں سے جن کا گناہ صرف یہ ہے کہ وہ زمین کے اُس خطّے کے رہائیشی ہیں جس پر اسرائیل کا قیام مقصود ہے- اگر یہ انسان مسلمان نہیں بھی ہوتے یا کسی اورغیر یہودی مذہب سے ہوتے تو بھی اُن کے ساتھ یہی سلُوک کیا جاتا اگر وہ اس زمین کو خالی کرنے سے انکاری ہوتے-

مناسب طرزِعمل یہی ہے کہ ہم دنیا کی ساری جغرافیائی اورمذہبی اقوام کا ضمیر جھنجھوڑیں اور اُن سے کہیں کہ اب وہ بلّی اور کبُوتر کا یہ کھیل بند کریں اور اس حقیقت کا اعتراف کرلیں کہ یہودی صرف مسلمانوں کا نہیں، ہر غیر یہودی کا دُشمن ہے اور اس طرح وہ حقیقتا" انسانیت کا دُشمن ہے-

کاش دنیا یہ مان لے کہ آج اسے پھرایک ہٹلر کی ضرورت ہے جو اسے یہودی فتنے سے ہمیشہ کیلیے نجات دلادے ورنہ وہ دن آ ہی جاۓ گا جب یہودیوں کا سیلِ بلا روۓ زمین کے آخری غیر یہودی کے دروازے پر موت کی دستک دے رہا ہوگا-  

وہ اپنی خُو نہ چھوڑینگے ھم اپنی وضع کیوں بدلیں

 غزہ میں شہید ہونیوالے بچّے یقینا" معصوم اور بے قصور تھے- مفادات کی جنگ میں ایک کا ہیرو دوسرے کا مجرم ہوتا ہے- دُرست- لیکن یہ سارے کے سارے  بچے ایسے نام نہاد مجرموں کی اولاد تک یقینا" نہیں ہونگے پھر انہیں کیوں شہید کیا گیا؟ اسی قتلِ بے سبب کی وجہ سے آج ہم سب غمزدہ ہیں اور دامے، درمے، سخنے، اُن سے اِظہارِ یک جہتی کر رہے ھیں-

اسی طرح کے واقعات ہمارے ملک میں بھی پیش آتے رھے ھیں- ہمارے صوبہ کے۔ پی۔ کے (KPK) میں یہودی پرست بلکہ یہودیت کے سرپرستِ اعلیٰ امریکہ کے ڈرون حملوں میں ہزاروں معصوم بچّے شہید ہوۓ- غزہ کے شہداؑ سے کہیں زیادہ- یہ سارے بچّے بھی تونام نہاد دہشتگردوں کی اولاد نہیں ھونگے- ان کیلیے دنیا نے کتنے آنسو بہاۓ؟ برادر اسلامی ممالک سے یکجہتی کی کتنی آوازیں اٹھیں؟ خود ہمارے فلسطینی بھائیوں کی جانب سے ان کی کتنی اشک شوئ کی گئ؟ ہر شہید پر ہم آنسو بہائیں، ہر مزار پر ہم پھُول چڑھائیں اور ہر قبر پر ہم دیۓ جلائیں لیکن خود ہمارے لیے؟ بقولِ شاعر؎

بر مزارِماغریباں، نے چراغے نے گُلے

                  

"پہلی جنگ عظیم کی ١٠٠ویں برسی پر "بغیر جنگ کا ایک سال

کیا ہم پہلی جنگ عظیم کی ١٠٠ویں برسی ٢٨ جولائی ٢٠١٤ کے موقع پر دنیا کو "بغیر جنگ کا ایک سال" منا  کر امن کا ایک  بیش بہا تحفہ دے سکتے ہیں؟

                 

عالمِ اسلام، فلسطین۔ کشمیر اور پاکستان

عزیز فلسطینی اور عرب بھائ بہنو!

ہم ہمیشہ کی طرح مصیبت کی اِس گھڑی میں بھی تمھارے ساتھ ہیں-

کیونکہ

تُم نے ہمیں بھُلادیا ہم نہ تُمہیں بھُلاسکے-

منجانب

کشمیری اور پاکستانی شہیدوں کے وُرثاء

ایک بڑے اور پائیدار امن کا قیام ایک بڑی اور فیصلہ کن جنگ کے بغیر ناممکن ہے

ایک بڑے اور پائیدار امن کا  قیام ایک بڑی اور فیصلہ کن جنگ کے بغیر ناممکن ہے - ایسی جنگ جو ہمیں جنگ جُو افراد سے نہیں "جنگ جُو سوچ " کے خلاف لڑنی پڑیگی- کیا  آپ اتفاق کرتے ہیں اس بات سے ؟