Ahmed Quraishi

I first heard about Mr. Quraishi when I happened to read his article that almost predicted Benazir’s assasination. 

Till now I have failed to place this certain person. And that is not a good thing. Let me clear this; I have failed to place where I would rather want him placed. On my radar at least, he keeps popping up under the umbrella of Musharaf-supporters who oppose the lawyers’ movement and believe more in conspiracy than in the theory. I don’t want people to be popping up there, that section is for people I do not intend to pay much attention to. 

I like the ‘controversy’ Mr. Ahmed Quraishi articles usually induce. I end up realizing that this controversy is exactly for his idenitification as Musharaf-supporter-lawyers-opposer person. His latest article where he actually goes ahead to prove that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudry is the de facto reason for all the feces that have hit the fan, just made him show up on that section of my radar. 

I find it amusing that he chose to call his article “Lawyers’ Iftikhar: A Messiah or a Pawn” and then went on to give an immensly one-sided ‘analysis’ that ‘proves’ Mr. Iftikhar a foolish pawn in the game of Condi Rice, Zardari and Venetians from Mars. 

Now, here’s my brief take on Mr. Iftikhar: I certainly do not consider him a saint, heck, I think he is not a clean person, with a closet full of skeletons. This is not because I think so, but because I have asked people who are/were in contact with Mr Iftikhar. But for whatever reason, he did something that was correct in principle. I can be totally wrong in this assumption – based on a loose array of facts, but an assumption nonetheless. But as long as your are making an assumption, I refuse to accept Mr. Quraishi’s stance that eptiomizes pessimism. He has not even considered that Mr. Iftikhar could have had a heavy attack of concious.

Mr. Iftikhar’s act started something. Unfortunately, this epiphany-like act based on principle has still refused to become a trend in the society generaly, and in the current judiciary specifically (case in point: Farah Dogar case). Still, that one act can easily be called the reason for the movement. A bit like the straw that broke the camel’s back. The lawyers took it from there. Note please, the reason a straw breaks the camel back is the million other straws underneath it.  The political parties jumped in, as did – and this is the most important bit – as did the civil society, uncles, aunties, kids, dudes, professionals, writers and your average Bashir the plumber included. 

I have a friend lawyer who has cursed the lawyers’ movement all along – always basing his contempt on his eventual inability to earn his fair income as a practicing lawyer due to strikes and marches etc. Although I understand his stance and accept it to some extent, I not for a moment even doubt that there was and is a higher cause. The cause of showing up and letting yourself be counted. I think Mr. Iftikhar can easily be called the modern day hero based on this very definition, that he started this. 

I would not at all go to the extent of calling him a Messiah of even the slightest order. He eventually did his job and that is that – just see what happens when people in higher-up postions just do what they are supposed to do, just see how the civil society joins and rejoices, people please take lessons.

But Mr. Quraishi has tried to compare Mr. Iftikhar on a scale as ludicrous as a Messiah or a Pawn. His reasons are assumptions at best, or malice-laden jibes by a working hand of lobbyists working out of dark and danky offices. I don’t assume Mr. Quraishi to be a lobbyist nor do I believe his office is dark nor danky. I try to look at both sides – and then ignore the expendable negatives. 

But Mr. Iftikhar is a pawn, Mr Quraishi? How is that? The NRO was his ‘doing’? Any proof, sir? How can you say that without quoting a single excuse even, much less a reason? The reasoning you have presented is much like saying that the cause for a ‘4′ are the two ‘2’sbeing added without seeing it, whereas it could be a division of 8 with 2, a multiplication of 1 and 4, and quite a few other possibilities. Why assume the easiest, if not also the most pessimistic? Please clarify