"Angels in the Outfield"

I remember my first reaction when I heard about the need strict implementation of Article 62 and 63. I though okay this is going to be interesting to watch how much of it is actually implemented since there is a long range of cases on politicians from billion rupees scam to non payment of taxes to water/cow theft.

But it all turned out to be something which is not only hilarious, funny, shameful but also disgusting. As usual we are using the name of religion to interfere the basic human rights of citizen of the country. We are trying to do something which only God is entitled to do. As always we are taking these sensitive decisions making like judging deeds/actions in to our own hands. To make the matters worse, there are even questions about the integrity and character of the Election Commission of Pakistan and on these very Returning Officers. These people would have been service for some time now and I am sure they were around the time of last election as well. So when all these candidates passed the tests of being sadiq and amin back then? And if they passed their application papers back then, doesn’t it make it a party to this fraud? But let’s forget everything for now and read the Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) (Article 62):

(1)      A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-

a)      he is a citizen of Pakistan;

b)      he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty -five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in-

(i)                any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a seat reserved for non-Muslims; and

(ii)              any area in a Province from which she seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women.

c)      he is, in the case of Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal Capital or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership;

d)      he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;

e)      he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;

f)       he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law;

g)      he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.

Looking at these conditions, the real fun starts from the condition (d) “where he is to be of good character and not commonly known as who violates the Islamic Injunctions”. My first question is how do you define a good character? Let’s start with most common example, people who have benefited from a top property tycoon and businessman of this country would vouch for his generosity and will to help people. While at the same time you would meet more than dozen politicians and journalists who would tell you horrifying stories how he has manipulated his way to the top. So who are you going to believe? Nothing has been ever proven in the court of law. So how are we going to judge him? And the funnier part is the second half of this condition; I have somehow failed to understand “not commonly known” so if someone does “bad things” in his private farmhouse then it is fine? Or if someone other than his close circle doesn’t know about his that, then he is approved as sadiq and amin?

Let’s move to next clause which states that “adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins;” Again please enlighten me since when our start started asking people to pray five times a week? Do our shops ever close down during that? Obligatory duties are to be performed by individual and if he doesn’t then of course the first question would be asked by Salah, but by the GOD, not by human. HE has the right and power to decide the eventual fate. Again the second part is ambiguous as in the previous condition, where I failed to understand difference between “major and minor sins”. Is there a list in our constitution declaring which one falls under what category? The Returning Officer, who is a human after all with his natural weakness of being biased, would decide on the spot that he is a major or minor sinner? Last time I heard a sin was a sin, there was no distinction.

Finally we are down to one condition that does make a little bit of sense (Okay don’t start judging me yet on this one). It says” “he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law. Now where the first part of the clause is subjective as expected, it is the second part which caught my eye. This at least says that court of law would decide in this matter and there one can hope for emergence of some kind of evidence before the final decision. But again, our politicians have signed deals among themselves, with dictators, and even on the back flip of Quran just to refute them later one. Does that leave them as sadiq and ameen? The two major parties of the country blame each other for violating the signed Charter of Democracy, so who is right and who is wrong? Since whoever is wrong here, should be disqualified immediately. We have people on video tapes who vowed with hands on Quran to bring some criminals and God know who to justice. Did they? Do they still qualify? For every political party, their own leader is the most honest and others are corrupt, while the truth is that we are a corrupt nation and every one of us has a Zardari in us. It is just we do corruption at different level. This doesn’t makes us any better than anyone else.

Last but not least we are down to the main clause which is states: “he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.” First of all, it was a very smart move by those religious parties who opposed the creation of this country to include the words “after the establishment of Pakistan” so they could wipe off their proud previous record of not believing in the idea of this country at first place. Secondly, though we love to find the definition of Ideology of Pakistan through Iqbal`s poetic verses or Quaid i Azam`s speeches, it is a fact that there is no exact definition on which everyone has agreed in the constitution. Researchers have written that this term didn’t even exist before Gen Yahya era (Yes, the sinner, drunken army dictator approved it for obvious reasons) and was coined by a religious leader turned politician of a famous political party and an army Major General. Today we all have our different interpretation of this ideology and Ayaz Mir`s rejection is a blunt example of how much constructive criticism or freedom of speech. It actually made me laugh when Ansar Abbasi said that if you don’t believe in this ideology then you can’t sit in the Assemblies and only record protest by going on roads.

The fact remains that under the above mentioned subjective clauses, most of the people in the country wouldn’t qualify for Assemblies and by “most of” I mean more than 95%. Our entire system is based on the working of Interest, and being part of doesn’t it automatically disqualify us all?  I would definitely support a check and balance system where the candidates are pre-screened about their previous public and criminal record. But that would include if there are any proven charges against them, any outstanding liabilities/bills/loans, any inhuman/immoral charges etc. This is also being done but the focus is more on bringing the “Angels” in the Parliament. Even the check balance like cases or outstanding loans is not being implemented in reality; the big fishes i.e. the head of ALL political parties have one case or the other over them. But they say it never has been proven, so innocent till declared guilty, well in that case not a SINGLE case has been proven against our beloved President as well, so why the kolaverdi?

In nutshell, we want a ideal Islamic state in Madinah but forget that we are living in the 21^st century Pakistan where we have the ideal Islamic laws in our constitutions but not the ideal people. People like Ansar Abbasi spent good time of his life defaming this constitution as non-Islamic and suddenly now he has guts to say that the articles should be implemented forcefully since it is all in the constitution. Does the creator of this Constitution Mr Bhutto fulfill all the conditions? Is Zia eligible under this constitution?  Meera and Musarat Shaheen pass the honest and Islamic junctions test but a mere columnist cant? It is about time we come out of this denial and instead of short cuts, start working on some long time solutions to these issues through building proper practicable check and balance systems. You can’t clean up mess of more than six decades in one go. Till then we won’t be seeing any real “Angels in the Outfield”!