A grave hazard
IN these stressful times, all distractions are welcome. According to a recent report, carried by this paper, the Pakistan National Heart Association — curiously abbreviated as ‘Panah’ — has asked the country’s electronic media regulator to ban all coverage of the honourable Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. Apparently, the former federal minister is an overlooked risk to the general well-being and good health of our youth. Strangely, Panah’s problem isn’t with Mr Rashid’s usually heartburn-inducing worldviews; it is the seductive imagery of the ex-minister “waving his cigar” on our TV screens that the association wants Pemra to shelter impressionable young minds from. “Due to his action of waving the cigar, our young generation may think that Sheikh Rashid Ahmed became the federal minister just because of the use of cigar and also suppose that it is the symbol of personality and they should also start smoking,” Panah general secretary Sanaullah Ghumman warns in his letter to the regulator. A sobering concern indeed.
Panah is not the first to be so gravely annoyed with Mr Rashid’s cigar-smoking habit. In 2017, Chaudhry Tanveer Ilyas of the PML-N had reportedly snapped at the Awami Muslim League chief during a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee for the very same reason. The self-professed ‘Pindi boy’ reportedly wouldn’t stop puffing on his cigar while the committee was still in session, greatly irking the other lawmakers present. Mr Ilyas had sought a ban on Mr Rashid’s smoking, “for the sake of his own health”. He appears to have been unsuccessful in his efforts. Be that as it may, Mr Rashid should take the fresh warning seriously. Smoking-related diseases are no trivial matter, and his habit does set a bad example for others. He may wish to continue partaking in the pleasure of hand-rolled havanas, but he ought to do so away from the public eye. All that smoke appears to be clouding our youth’s ability to think straight and productively.
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2023
A milestone
WITH Humza Yousaf poised to become First Minister of Scotland’s semi-autonomous government, some of the top public offices in the UK will be occupied by people with roots in South Asia. Mr Yousaf has made history as the new head of the Scottish National Party and is set to become the country’s first Muslim or Asian head of government. Mr Yousaf’s grandparents hailed from Mian Channu, and many Pakistanis here and abroad will welcome the fact that a person of Pakistani origin will hold the highest political office in Scotland. Elsewhere in the UK, not too long ago, Rishi Sunak made history by becoming the first person of colour and the first South Asian (of Indian origin) to occupy 10 Downing Street. Meanwhile, London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan has roots in Pakistan — Karachi, to be precise — while over in Ireland, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar is also of Indian origin. It appears that the descendants of former subjects of the erstwhile British Empire are now running the show there. The rise of South Asian leaders in the UK shows that the political atmosphere has changed considerably; a person of colour leading governments in London or Edinburgh would have been considered an impossibility only a few decades ago. Yet while voters in the UK have shown that they are largely blind to a candidate’s racial origins or religious beliefs and are more concerned about policy, it is also a fact that far-right actors are gaining ground. Groups like the English Defence League and Patriotic Alternative are racist outfits, and loath to see individuals with immigrant backgrounds in positions of power.
However, after the celebrations are over, Mr Yousaf has a tough to-do list. Following the resignation of his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, his party is divided internally, while Scotland, like other parts of the UK, faces a cost-of-living crisis. Moreover, the first minister to be is firmly in the Scottish independence camp, telling supporters he will work on “delivering independence for our nation”. This is likely to place him on a collision course with London. It would be something of a historical irony if an individual with roots in Britain’s former colonies were to set in motion the breakup of the UK. But, ultimately, Mr Yousaf’s victory is a win for diversity, and a setback to the politics of prejudice.
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2023
Open discord
IT is quite an extraordinary situation: a section of the superior judiciary has thrown down the gauntlet to the Supreme Court chief justice in direct, albeit respectful, terms.
The schism within the apex court has been simmering for some time. But the discord has now become untenable, given the reservations Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail have spelled out in their 28-page order — reservations articulated before by several other judges, but never with such clarity.
If there is, after this, no change in the way matters at the highest court in the land are being handled, the institution’s public standing could sustain long-term damage.
There is also the question of legacy. As we have seen recently, even the country’s top judges are not immune to uncharitable public opinion after they hang up their robes.
The order, pertaining to the March 1 verdict wherein the top court ruled 3-2 that polls in KP and Punjab must be held within 90 days, dilates mainly upon two issues. One is the SC’s original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) and whether it was within its rights to take up the matter in suo motu proceedings.
The judges stress that the original jurisdiction is an “extraordinary” one, to be exercised “with circumspection”. Briefly, they have ruled that given that Article 199 confers the same jurisdiction — enforcement of fundamental rights — on the high courts, and as the LHC had already decided on the matter in question (and which is being adjudicated in intra-court appeals), the apex court could not exercise its original jurisdiction here.
Only its appellate jurisdiction would apply in such a case. In the light of these observations, they have held that the suo motu proceedings stood dismissed by a majority of 4-3, counting the two judges who had given their decision early in the proceedings, and who could not have been excluded from the bench nor their decisions excluded from the final decision unless they had specifically recused themselves. This is diametrically opposed to the March 1 order, whose legal standing may now be in doubt.
Perhaps even more devastating is the part of the ruling that circles back to its opening reference to an “imperial Supreme Court”, where the office of the chief justice is a “one-man show”.
The “unbridled power” enjoyed by the country’s top judge in taking suo motu notice and in the constitution of special benches to hear cases, it says, has “lowered the honour and prestige of this court”.
There could not be a more scathing assessment of the conduct of the highest judicial office in the land. Had the collective wisdom of the full bench been harnessed in cases of constitutional significance — and not doing so goes against all logic and principles of fairness — such an outcome could have been avoided.
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2023