Daily Times

There are no two opinions about the fact that whatever transpired in Islamabad on 26th of November should not have happened and political issues should have been settled through political means to avoid the debilitating impact of this turmoil on the already fragile economy and moving towards the much need political stability in the country. That is how contentious issues are expected to be handled in a democratic polity.

What happened in Islamabad and the developments leading to it was indeed a sequel to pummeling of the foregoing attributes of democracy. In the backdrop of this regrettable confrontation between PTI and government many political commentators, media men, some intellectual circles including one of our former ambassadors to USA are putting the entire blame on the government for dealing with the situation in a very harsh manner and causing lot of difficulties for the citizens by blocking roads, suspending mobile and internet services, notwithstanding the fact that it could have dealt with the situation politically.

I am also firm believer in handling the political issues through political means as conceded in the very first paragraph of this discourse. However, I feel that holding the government entirely responsible for what happened on 26th of November is tantamount to conveniently overlooking the ground realities which descends into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. I would like to remind all those traversing this one-way track that it takes two to tango. Solutions to political problems can be found when both sides are willing to sit together with an open mind.

The reality is that though the government has been expressing its willingness for a dialogue with PTI with a view to end the political impasse and move forward the latter particularly founding chairman of the party has been out-rightly rejecting dialogue with the government. He has been insisting that he would hold dialogue only with establishment which has repeatedly made it clear that the dialogue if any has to be between the political parties.

Imran is not a political prisoner but facing cases of corruption.

It is an irrefutable reality that the advent of Imran Khan on the political landscape of the country has turned topsy-turvy the political culture of the country by introducing element of violence, impudence and false narratives. His followers and party leaders have been faithfully sticking to that culture and have shown an irrepressible propensity to settle matters through violent means rather than by showing space for dissenting views and acting as a true opposition.

Creating rumpus in the legislative assemblies and using abusing language against leaders of the other political parties has been their norm in the aftermath of general elections. The entire nation has been witnessing the insulting behaviour of the party supporters in UK against the Pakistani dignitaries visiting that country besides frequent demonstrations in front the residence of Nawaz Sharif during which they have been using insulting invectives against him. Is it this type of politics that we need and does it create congenial atmosphere for a political dialogue or solution of political problems through political means so vociferously being advocated by the critics of the government? Anybody with a conscience and understanding of how politics is done would surely disapprove and condemn such a behaviour and attitude. Not only that the media warriors of the party have been targeting Pakistan Army and the COAS in person portraying them in very dismal colours and holding them responsible for the woes of the party and violation of human rights in the country. The party has also hired lobbies to invite foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the country.

In view of the foregoing facts the critics and intellectuals having swipe at the government need to be realistic about what is happening in the country and who is responsible for the permeating situation. The current marches on Islamabad were designed to put pressure on the government for release of Imran Khan which is quite baffling. Imran is not a political prisoner. He is facing cases of corruption and has been convicted by the courts of law in certain cases. He is the architect of 9th May mayhem as concluded by an anti-terrorist court at Lahore while rejecting his bail applications. His release from prison can come only through the courts and not by executive order of the government. Therefore, the strategy of PTI to secure release of Imran Khan through agitation was morally and legally wrong.

Pakistan is a nuclear power with powerful Army to safeguard state interests and thwart the designs of internal and external enemies of the country. There is a well-established government in the saddle. It is not a banana republic where armed groups can destabilize the government and pummel the state interests for their unreasonable and narrow political agenda.

It is really unheard of a chief minister of a province marching on the capital with armed and charged crowd destroying properties, injuring and killing personnel of the law enforcing agencies by using official resources of the province. The reality is that the government exhibited exemplary patience against this provocative behaviour and even offered them an alternate space for their protest and sit-in. This time around even the Islamabad High Court had declared the march illegal and had asked the government to take all possible measures to restore peace in the capital.

There is no denying the fact that the PTI leadership refused to listen to the government and also showed defiance to the court orders. It is worth noting that the entire crowd belonged to KP and nobody from other provinces responded to the final ‘do or die’ call of the founding chairman of the party. So when an armed crowd with a declared agenda of occupying D-chowk and staging a sit-in marches on the capital to pressurize the government for release of their leader destroying properties on the way and killing personnel of the law enforcing agencies, it cannot be greeted with garlands.

The state is under obligation to deal harshly with those who challenge its writ. It is a universally accepted responsibility of the government. Those who are expressing partisan views need to scratch their conscience.

The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.