Different details and importance of the constitutions have been stated in the reading. Pakistan currently has a written constitution that was formulated in 1973 in Bhutto's rule. We have one of the biggest constitutions in the world. I mean if you have ever seen our constitution it's compiled in form of a book. There are articles about almost all the major issues that our people have to face.
Clearly our law and order situation does not seem to support the above mentioned facts. The problem is with the implementation of law and not the existence of different laws and policies. An illiterate woman sitting anywhere in a village of southern Punjab or Baluchistan doesn't know what are her fundamental rights as a human being. She has no idea that if her husband beats her then she can call the police and tell them to arrest him. The problem is that people don't know their rights.
We need to educate our people on different issues regarding their rights and about different articles of constitution. Their should be a proper mechanism for that. I mean countries like UK, Israel,Northern Ireland etc that do not have written constitutions are doing way better than us in terms of human rights and other issues. Their people know their rights. And that's the main difference between a civilized and uncivilized nations.
Judiciary has the power to be 'above' the politics and keep a check on politicians as mentioned in the reading. But in my opinion it is very rare for the judges to be unbiased in their opinions. Our justices have played a crucial role in destabilizing or maintaining the stability of our democracies during the course of our histories. The first ever Martial law of Pakistan that was imposed in 1958 was validated by supreme court,1969's martial rule was also validated by supreme court judges,1977's martial rule was supported by judiciary as well. Musharraf's government was supported by a bench head by Chied Justice Irshad Hassan Khan and how ironic is that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudary was a part of that team of justices.
I personally believe that after the lawyer's movement our lawyer's and judges have tried to exceed their limits in some cases. I mean supreme court should be strong but they use their discretion wherever they have some sort of interests of their own. I mean they are not doing it with the aim of providing justice to everyone. It seems as if at certain occasions they have ulterior motives in taking interest in certain matters regarding the state. For example supreme court was very strict with dismissing Gillani, but they are never too vocal about the issues of minorities and 'missing persons' in Baluchistan.
At certain points it seems as if they are moving on a certain plan or trying to make certain controversy successful. I mean they keep confusing me.
1 comment:
I totally agree with you. Since education hasn't trickled down to our rural areas (which is where majority of the population lives) people do not know their fundamental rights. Even those who do know, cannot exercise them since the implementation of the law is flawed. If you can work your way around the law, why would anyone follow it. If you can bribe a police officer so as to get away with a traffic violation who will follow the rules. Therefore for this situation to get any better implementation of the law needs to be enforced and a zero tolerance towards corruption needs to be brought about, on all levels
Post a Comment