Another Biased Decision

Following its tradition, the Supreme Court has passed a biased decision on the Memo Issue. The court accused Hussain Haqqani (former ambassador and professor at Huston University) of treason.

A moderate Pakistani has been ousted by the Pakistani judiciary. The decision was not passed on the basis of constitutional norms and ethos; rather the court hearkened to the popular voices on the media propaganda machine. Sycophants, cynics, and extremists with their hate speech and blabber tried to subjugate the cowered judges. The judges reciprocated to these voices, passing a decision against the finest ambassador Pakistan ever had in the United States.

Imran Khan — a senseless character who ridicules all opposition and questions with a big laugh — accused Mr. Haqqani to be a US Ambassador of Pakistan in Washington. In other words, he was calling him a traitor. The cricketer used anti-Haqqani rhetoric to drive his utopian campaign for freeing Pakistan from all ills in 90 days.

The Chief of ISI, Shuja Pasha, also aligned with the unknown Mansoor Ijaz. He also believed that the memo was really written by Mr. Haqqani. The army knew it was false. Supporting Mansoor Ijaz was an excellent tactic to discourage all voices that speak against military interference in Pakistan. The support was a signal rather than an approval of Manzoor Ijaz's testimony. 

It can be observed that many journalists, the entertainer Imran Khan, and the ISI are all against this man. Any person who speaks for democracy and rule of the majority is seen as a traitor. Anyone who speaks — or even signals — for dismantling the military-political hegemony is called an anti-state element. Anybody trying to say the truth is brutally discouraged. 

The judiciary, following the dictates of their owners, has given a decision which was quite anticipated. We cannot hope for justice in a society were "khaki uniform and seventeen judges" rule. There is no justice in a country where a judicial commission believes a man who loathes Pakistan and calls a diplomat a traitor. There is no justice where the judges cite Khalil Jibran, while they themselves concede military dictators. Justice is an abstraction in a country where judges follow popular demands and act on the whims of the chorus.

The judges have deliberately arrived at an incorrect decision, reducing their position of prestige.