As all eyes are now on the Supreme Court case which will determine the constitutionality of the Deputy Speaker’s egregious action of 03 April, it is useful to remind ourselves of how we got here.
A routine diplomatic cable sent by one of our diplomats and setting out a summary of his discussion with a mid-ranking State Department official, was blown of out proportion to provide the basis for an alleged international conspiracy against Imran Khan. The Deputy Speaker then relied on the threat letter to become a willing accomplice for subverting the course of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law – in effect, he acted as judge, jury and executioner to invoke Article 5 of the constitution, arbitrarily and capriciously, to condemn the opposition unheard and to unconstitutionally rule the no-confidence motion out of order.
If there remained any doubts about Imran Khan’s unfitness for high office, the imbroglio surrounding the “threat letter” had already gone a long way in nullifying these doubts. The fell action of 03 April probably confirmed this beyond any shadow of doubt.
But in one sense, the prime minister’s conduct in relation to the threat letter is understandable, since anything short of a grand global conspiracy would not appear important enough for our worthy PM, who strides the world like a Colossus, albeit only by his own biased assessment and that of his cheering acolytes. It was simply not befitting to the prime minister’s immense sense of his own destiny to be brought down by an opposition majority in the National Assembly. Therefore the red herring of the threat letter had to be raised.
The rank inconsistencies in the prime minister’s stance were breathtaking: was it a letter or a cable; was it sent by our man in Washington or a US official; if received on 7/8 March, why was nothing done about it until the end of March; if the matter was as outrageous as claimed by Imran Khan, then why was a US official allowed to attend the OIC Foreign Ministers summit in Islamabad and meet with top Pakistan officials; and, did the National Security Council meeting on 31 March conclude that there was a foreign-sponsored move for regime change or did they find no evidence to this effect?
But it remains to be seen whether the average Pakistani will also be taken in by this confusing tale. After all, to quote Abraham Lincoln, one “cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
The PTI stands for insaf, i.e. justice, rule of law and equality before law, etc. In the matter of the letter, has the prime minister done justice to his oath of office and honoured the rule of law? Has he considered the import of the words: And that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as Prime Minister except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as Prime Minister.
I believe even the late Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada would have struggled to come up with a watertight legal defence to the charge that the prime minister has breached his oath by blatantly revealing the matter of the letter, not just to any person but to the world at large!
In addition, has Imran Khan considered the requirements of the Official Secrets Act, 1923? Section 5 of the Act makes it an offence for a person holding a government office to reveal to any unauthorized person any communication the former has received in his capacity as the holder of the government office? And in the present case we are talking about a person who holds the highest executive office in government revealing such communication to the world at large!
Amazingly, the prime minister often cites the example of Indian foreign policy and diplomacy in a favourable context, in comparison to, and at the expense of, his own country’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Enamoured as he is of Indian examples, I would like to remind the prime minister of an episode of a no-confidence motion in the Indian Lok Sabha.
In 1990, Prime Minister VP Singh, a man of true convictions, decided to implement the report of the Mandal Commission, which called for fixing a job quota for the marginalized castes of Indian society. Outraged at this decision, the BJP, which predominantly represents the interests of the upper castes, withdrew its support to VP Singh and a no-confidence motion was moved against his government.
VP Singh knew that his stance reflected justice, equality and the desire to lift the poorest sections of Hindus from the dregs of society. But he did not summon the millions of his lower-caste supporters to surround the Lok Sabha building on the day of voting and nor did he berate his opponents as the upper-caste bigots that many of them actually were, even though he could easily have whipped up such inter-caste passions. Of course, the thought of having the no-confidence motion ruled out of order by the Speaker never entered his mind!
Rather, he resolutely stuck to his guns and faced the no-confidence motion with dignity. His simple and impassioned query to his opponents was, “What kind of India do you want”? The answer he got was in the shape of his resounding defeat in the no-confidence motion. Singh knew he was in the right and that his stance was based on the principles of social justice, but he gracefully accepted his defeat and exited office with his honour intact. History remembers him today as an honourable man.
If the Supreme Court overturns the action of 03 April, will Imran Khan take a leaf out of VP Singh’s book and face the no-confidence motion, honestly and squarely and with grace and gravitas?
Sadly, few non-PTI supporters will hold their breath on the fruition of this quaint hope!
A routine diplomatic cable sent by one of our diplomats and setting out a summary of his discussion with a mid-ranking State Department official, was blown of out proportion to provide the basis for an alleged international conspiracy against Imran Khan. The Deputy Speaker then relied on the threat letter to become a willing accomplice for subverting the course of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law – in effect, he acted as judge, jury and executioner to invoke Article 5 of the constitution, arbitrarily and capriciously, to condemn the opposition unheard and to unconstitutionally rule the no-confidence motion out of order.
If there remained any doubts about Imran Khan’s unfitness for high office, the imbroglio surrounding the “threat letter” had already gone a long way in nullifying these doubts. The fell action of 03 April probably confirmed this beyond any shadow of doubt.
But in one sense, the prime minister’s conduct in relation to the threat letter is understandable, since anything short of a grand global conspiracy would not appear important enough for our worthy PM, who strides the world like a Colossus, albeit only by his own biased assessment and that of his cheering acolytes. It was simply not befitting to the prime minister’s immense sense of his own destiny to be brought down by an opposition majority in the National Assembly. Therefore the red herring of the threat letter had to be raised.
The rank inconsistencies in the prime minister’s stance were breathtaking: was it a letter or a cable; was it sent by our man in Washington or a US official; if received on 7/8 March, why was nothing done about it until the end of March; if the matter was as outrageous as claimed by Imran Khan, then why was a US official allowed to attend the OIC Foreign Ministers summit in Islamabad and meet with top Pakistan officials; and, did the National Security Council meeting on 31 March conclude that there was a foreign-sponsored move for regime change or did they find no evidence to this effect?
But it remains to be seen whether the average Pakistani will also be taken in by this confusing tale. After all, to quote Abraham Lincoln, one “cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
The PTI stands for insaf, i.e. justice, rule of law and equality before law, etc. In the matter of the letter, has the prime minister done justice to his oath of office and honoured the rule of law? Has he considered the import of the words: And that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as Prime Minister except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as Prime Minister.
I believe even the late Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada would have struggled to come up with a watertight legal defence to the charge that the prime minister has breached his oath by blatantly revealing the matter of the letter, not just to any person but to the world at large!
In addition, has Imran Khan considered the requirements of the Official Secrets Act, 1923? Section 5 of the Act makes it an offence for a person holding a government office to reveal to any unauthorized person any communication the former has received in his capacity as the holder of the government office? And in the present case we are talking about a person who holds the highest executive office in government revealing such communication to the world at large!
Amazingly, the prime minister often cites the example of Indian foreign policy and diplomacy in a favourable context, in comparison to, and at the expense of, his own country’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Enamoured as he is of Indian examples, I would like to remind the prime minister of an episode of a no-confidence motion in the Indian Lok Sabha.
In 1990, Prime Minister VP Singh, a man of true convictions, decided to implement the report of the Mandal Commission, which called for fixing a job quota for the marginalized castes of Indian society. Outraged at this decision, the BJP, which predominantly represents the interests of the upper castes, withdrew its support to VP Singh and a no-confidence motion was moved against his government.
VP Singh knew that his stance reflected justice, equality and the desire to lift the poorest sections of Hindus from the dregs of society. But he did not summon the millions of his lower-caste supporters to surround the Lok Sabha building on the day of voting and nor did he berate his opponents as the upper-caste bigots that many of them actually were, even though he could easily have whipped up such inter-caste passions. Of course, the thought of having the no-confidence motion ruled out of order by the Speaker never entered his mind!
Rather, he resolutely stuck to his guns and faced the no-confidence motion with dignity. His simple and impassioned query to his opponents was, “What kind of India do you want”? The answer he got was in the shape of his resounding defeat in the no-confidence motion. Singh knew he was in the right and that his stance was based on the principles of social justice, but he gracefully accepted his defeat and exited office with his honour intact. History remembers him today as an honourable man.
If the Supreme Court overturns the action of 03 April, will Imran Khan take a leaf out of VP Singh’s book and face the no-confidence motion, honestly and squarely and with grace and gravitas?
Sadly, few non-PTI supporters will hold their breath on the fruition of this quaint hope!