THIS is apropos of your front page news ‘Lal Masjid probe ordered’ (Dec 5) regarding a complaint filed in the Supreme Court by the heirs of the 103 missing persons since the bloody operation at Lal Masjid in July 2007. In an excellent response, Muhammed Aslam Warraich wrote:
“It is amazing and tragic that the Supreme Court has labelled the persons responsible for the operation as guilty, even before the start of the investigation. The blame can only be apportioned after a thorough and impartial investigation.”
What Mr Warraich, however, was polite enough not to mention was:
a) While appointing a one-man commission from the Federal Shariat Cout, did the Supreme Court consider that the Lal Masjid operation may not have been purely the result of a religious dispute. One wonders an issue with such diverse ramifications be brushed aside by appointing a one-man commission. Shouldn’t there have been constitutional experts and defence analysts on the commission as well?
b) Has the Supreme Court considered whether the Ghazi brothers were justified in challenging the writ of the state and running a parallel state right in the heart of Islamabad.
c) What justification can the Supreme Court give to the storing of high calibre prohibited bore weapons, as well as rocket launchers etc., inside Lal Masjid? A mosque is a place of worship and not an armoury. The Ghazi brothers had openly said that they intended to bring their brand of Islam to Pakistan through the use of force and for that purpose weapons were stored inside the mosque. Morality teams scoured Islamabad and dealt on the spot punishment to offenders (according to their views) and found the Pakistan legal system corrupt and redundant.
d) Another thing that needs to be looked into is the presence of militants inside the mosque. Persons who were fighting the Pakistan army and the state of Pakistan were being given protection inside Lal Masjid. Was Gen Pervez Musharraf justified in using political and military force to crush the seeds of rebellion? In Pakistan you set a wrong example and very soon it becomes precedence for obscurantists.
e) Who fired the first shot and killed a Ranger. What were the circumstances that led to the shooting of a colonel of the Pakistan army?
It would be most interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with the act of challenging the writ of the state and running a state within a state which, in my opinion, is treason.
SARDAR AHMED SHAH JAN