The Kukrees and the Peons

I always knew Prime Minister Gilani had it in him. A sense of humor. But what I didn’t know up till now was that he had such excellent summarizing skills too. I mean the way he summarized the saga of the Swiss letter on Thursday in his two public meetings, was both fascinating and instructive. A study in simplistic discourse, really.


In his wonderfully animated Saraiki, he told his supporters that his dilemma was simple. If he wrote a letter against the President to the Swiss authorities, he committed treason according to Article 6 of the constitution, and consequently faced punishment by death. And if he didn’t write that letter, he faced contempt of court, and consequently faced six months in jail. So, ladies and gentlemen, owing to the prospective outcome of both these scenarios, what would be the better option for the PM to take?


And before you answer that question, please keep in mind that a PM is a PM and not a peon.


And since a PM is a PM and not a peon, and since he has gone to jail before and knows all about it, hence we should all clap and raise some cheer.


Or was it, hence we should all hire a peon and forget the PM?


Well, I am confused really.


To begin with I don’t understand the PM’s interpretation of Article 6 of the constitution, primarily because I am not a legal expert. So my question is that was it indeed an elected prime minister talking to his people whose intelligence he respects, or was it a jiyala taking his voters for a ride on a ‘qurbaani/sacrifice’ narrative? Also, is the choice really between a death penalty and a six month term in jail, or is  this simplistic approach just an emotional eye wash?


Now ideally one needs professional assistance to interpret the law, but my real troubles start when professional assistance confuses me even more, and I wonder if truth indeed is relative, especially in the legal world.


For instance the two lawyers I asked to help me out with understanding Article 6 of the constitution, kept talking about Article 63.


. “Six”, I repeated, repeatedly.


“Sixty three-G”, they repeated repeatedly.


And eventually I had to leave them drawing daggers at one another over  an argument about who can pardon whom and how.


“The Prime minister might not even go to jail because the President can pardon him the way he pardoned Senator Rehman Malik in the past” said Lawyer One.


“But the president can not pardon the Prime Minister unless the Prime Minister himself tells the President  to pardon him” said Lawyer Two.


“So why doesn’t the Prime Minister tell the president to pardon him?” I asked. “They are still on talking terms, right?”


“How can the Prime Minister tell the President to pardon him if he is convicted by the court and is no longer the Prime Minister” said Lawyer Two.


“Well, why can’t the Prime Minister tell the President to pardon him before the court convicts him?”I asked.


“Because they are writing a pardon, not a gift voucher at Hardee’s.” said Lawyer Two.


“Well, pardon me, but what about Article 6” I asked. If the judges are asking the PM to write the letter, then who is committing treason, the judges or the PM?


“Things are not as simple as that Bibi”, said Lawyer One, and added to it  something else that I am not sure I can repeat here.


And from experience I know that when men start saying Bibi, and resort to the unrepeatable in the presence of that verybibi, then they either don’t have an answer, or they very strongly feel that the bibi should leave, and get them some more orange juice.


Manly, isn’t it?


And speaking of manly, there was another thing that the PM said in his speech too. It was something about female chickens and a revolution. “Kukrees giving bangain” were his exact words, which could roughly be translated as crowing of the female chickens.


. Now who could the PM possibly be alluding to with this metaphor of kukrees indulging in manly activities?


You see, “kukree” is a very misleading word, and not necessarily academic in nature. But experts hold that since this misleading word was used in juxtaposition with the very leading word “revolution”, thus the jibe is clearly aimed at Imran Khan.


Dear PM, please give me a break. Imran Khan has been called a lot of things in the past, but to be called a female chicken? For God’s sake!! Not only is it an unfortunate metaphor, but untrue  and unfair as well.


My counter argument is two pronged. (A) Imran Khan is not a female. (B) He is no chicken either.


Period.


And no, Imran Khan is not paying me to say this. Even though, I strongly feel he should.


But  that’s besides the point. All in all, I think, it was quite gutsy of the PM to make jibes at peons as well as chickens all in one go. If I were him, I would apologize from both. From peons, for hurting their sentiments, and promoting class discrimination; and from kukrees, for taking their name in vain, and promoting gender bias in their ranks.


Because in the 21^st century, a prime minister is as much accountable to the rule of law as the peons are, and the female chickens are as much capable of giving bangain  as the male chickens can be.
Cheers!