Musharraf's 'glorious' words about the Constitution of Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The current constitution of Pakistan is not one that Jinnah would have supported. It does not reflect either Jinnah's or Islamic principles of a Nation-State that ensures equal rights for all citizens regardless of faith, gender or race.

 

[El Sidd]

The current constitution of Pakistan is not one that Jinnah would have supported. It does not reflect either Jinnah's or Islamic principles of a Nation-State that ensures equal rights for all citizens regardless of faith, gender or race.

That is a statement that can be made for any constitution be it 56, 62, 71.

It is hard to guess what Jinnah would have supported or how he would have it imagined.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is a statement that can be made for any constitution be it 56, 62, 71.

It is hard to guess what Jinnah would have supported or how he would have it imagined.

It's not hard. We know what he thought, at least the broader principles, and the current constitution does not do justice to those broader principles Jinnah articulated nor does it do justice to Islamic principles of justice & equality for all regardless of faith, gender or race.

The laws against Ahmadis & the blasphemy laws should be stricken down as unconstitutional by the SC just on the basis of Islamic principles alone.

 

[El Sidd]

It's not hard. We know what he thought, at least the broader principles, and the current constitution does not do justice to those broader principles Jinnah articulated nor does it do justice to Islamic principles of justice & equality for all regardless of faith, gender or race.

The laws against Ahmadis & the blasphemy laws should be stricken down as unconstitutional by the SC just on the basis of Islamic principles alone.

Apart from these 2 examples.

What other part of constitution you feel are against Jinnah 'thought' and 'views'?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apart from these 2 examples.

What other part of constitution you feel are against Jinnah 'thought' and 'views'?

Those are two major examples & enough for now.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It’s the basis for rule of law, it’s what Musharraf himself swore his oath on as a member of armed forces.

For once we’re actually upholding the constitution in this country. If certain individuals treat it as a piece of paper to be thrown in the dustbin, it shows a reflection of their character and their views on treason, it takes nothing away from the validity of the constitution.

Selective upholding of the constitution or any law is as bad - possibly worse - than not having a constitution at all.

This is another case of democratic institutions being used against Pakistan through selective application.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Subversion and violation of almost all the essential articles of Pakistan's Constitution, is happening all the time, at all the places, since 1973. Only, the procedural articles are acted upon.

Going to repeat my argument from twitter:

The judiciary validated Musharraf's coup, so from a strictly legal perspective, a future Supreme Court can't really touch the coup without getting the judiciary at the time to prove in court that they were coerced/forced/threatened into validating Musharraf's coup. Otherwise Musharraf's coup, from a strictly legal perspective, has the Supreme Court of Pakistan's approval.

So since the coup has been legalized, we move onto Musharraf's subsequent actions - the charge is that his 'imposition of emergency was unconstitutional'. Any sound jurist would balk at treason charges on this accusation.

First, if the emergency was considered unconstitutional, the correct recourse would have been to take it to the courts at that time to get the emergency revoked. Second, let's say that the PPP/PMLN/PTI governments invoke an emergency, either nationally or in a particular province. The imposition will be challenged in court, but if the court rules that the emergency is invalid, that does not make those actions 'treason'. Governments do this all the time, not just in Pakistan but also in the West (see the court challenges to Trump's acts). They make decisions that opponents challenge in the courts. The courts determine whether the decision made by the government is constitutional or not. The courts DO NOT declare treason on the government because they find the decision to be unconstitutional.

When this decision is appealed in the Pakistan Supreme Court, if the judges have an ounce of integrity to their profession and the law, they'll dismiss the treason charges. And since the events are so far in the past, the best the judges can do, and should do, is lay out and/or clarify the parameters that govern the imposition of an emergency for the future.

 

[El Sidd]

Those are two major examples & enough for now.

How do you propose these changes be made without hurting the sentiments of Muslims of Pakistan?

 

[fitpOsitive]

Hello PDF Awaam,

I have had enough of the Musharraf's treason case and honestly I am tired of arguing for the constitution of this country which is the basis of everything that is standing today.

Every soldier takes an oath to uphold the constitution of this country, his very official existence is based on the constitution.

Constitution is supreme and if there's no constitution, how would we govern ourselves anyway?

There are two things to see here..

DGISPR came out with a strong worder statement which said that the Army hopes that the justice will be provided based on the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Justice for whom?

The person who says, "I think the Constitution is just a piece of paper to be thrown into the dustbin."


If any Pakistani, especially a soldier defends these words, he/she is denying the existence of every State institution, especially the Armed Forces.

I fear a day when another General would say the same words and throw out a democratically elected Government.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207258609643593728

If "democratically" elected Nawaz or Zerdari then yes, why not.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

How do you propose these changes be made without hurting the sentiments of Muslims of Pakistan?

Education especially on religion.

 

[B.K.N]

Education especially on religion.

Keep your education to yourself
Ham jahil hi thek hain

 

[El Sidd]

Education especially on religion.

How do you educate on such topics? Asking just out of curiosity

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How do you propose these changes be made without hurting the sentiments of Muslims of Pakistan?

The same way the US courts ruled against racism and segregation in the US despite 'hurting the sentiments' of many, many racists.

Keep your education to yourself
Ham jahil hi thek hain

So long as you keep your religious views to yourself and don't force others to accept them.

 

[El Sidd]

The same way the US courts ruled against racism and segregation in the US despite 'hurting the sentiments' of many, many racists.

Recently the laws of finality of prophethood were changed in an unconstitutional manner which amounts to Article 6.

Why are no actions being taken to ensure supremacy of law and constitution?

Selective nature of such things marginalize people and help breed extremism just so you know

So long as you keep your religious views to yourself and don't force others to accept them.

The argument works both ways. One can argue you are forcing your beliefs and views by hiding behind alleged Jinnahs interpretation.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Selective upholding of the constitution or any law is as bad - possibly worse - than not having a constitution at all.

This is another case of democratic institutions being used against Pakistan through selective application.

What’s selective here? Do you think it should also be applied to dead dictators too? The Musharraf defence counsel could say the same should apply to co-conspirators but this isn’t a valid argument, article 6 says that they are also guilty of high treason, but not that a conspirator in chief, as Musharraf, was couldn’t be tried alone.

The contrast here is funny.

Zia had no respect for democracy, the state or the constitution...

And he met a grizzly end in a plane crash, and scarcely anyone remembers him for anything good, mostly just for creating the problems we face today.

On the other hand, Bhutto, as bad of a politician as he was...

Bhutto and his name are still remembered by his followers and he’s treated like a martyr. His daughter was twice elected PM, and people even now overlook some of his bad aspects because Zia had him killed and turned him into a political icon.

Point being, nobody reveres Zia, a large population of people revere Bhutto.