When these lines were written on the evening of November 25, the Interior Ministry had called in the Army to restore peace in the federal capital. After around 20 days of the sit-in by religious extremists calling for the resignation of the Law Minister, several attempts at negotiating with sit-in organisers and repeated orders by the Islamabad High Court, the government had decided to launch an operation on Saturday morning to clear Faizabad area that connects Islamabad and Rawalpindi. The day proved to be quite eventful with protesters marching beyond the sit-in site blocking many key arteries of the city, attacking policemen, media personnel and pretty much whosoever came in their way. As per unverified reports, a policeman succumbed to severe head injuries that he sustained while being beaten up by some protesters. All this mayhem caused by the blockade of roads was followed by moment-to-moment live coverage of the entire episode, in turn followed by shutting off all TV channels by the regulator. The live streaming of these channels, however, continued with a range of reporters and programme anchor persons offering their unabashed analyses soaked in political bias sometimes against the government and sometimes in support of the demands of violent protesters. How the mayhem began? The events of the last one month in the capital city highlight the extent of the incompetence of state institutions in managing the mob without violating essential rights of the general citizenry. As per the timeline, the members of the National Assembly passed the Elections Bill 2017 that contained a declaration as part of the nomination papers, affirming the finality of the Prophethood. Throughout the process of scrutiny at the committee stage, none of the members from any party had raised the issue. It was only after the Bill was passed when Sahibzada Tariqullah from Jamaat-e-Islami stood up on a Point of Order and mentioned that the word “oath” had been replaced with “declaration” in the draft. Upon which, Minister for Housing and Works Akram Khan Durrani suggested that if there was any ‘clerical mistake it should be removed immediately’. After that, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Ali Muhammad Khan, Mian Abdul Manan, Ghulam Ahamd Bailour, Major (r ) Tahir Iqbal and Ghulam Ahmad Lali also called for replacing the word “declaration” with “oath”. This marked the starting point of a controversy that got complicated and intense every time a government or opposition member opened their mouth. Punjab’s Law Minister Rana Sanuallah, meanwhile, gave a TV interview mentioning that Ahmadis were not declared kafirs in many Muslim countries. The clerics started raising hue and cry at their loudest. Tehreek-e-Labbaik announced a sit-in in the capital to get the law changed. By Oct 25, they had set foot on Islamabad’s Jinnah Avenue blocking citizens’ access to this main artery of the city. It took around a week for the government to negotiate with the protesters and reach an agreement. Among other things, the agreement mentioned punishment for Asiya Bibi, the Christian woman accused of blasphemy; support for Rohingya Muslims; and relaxation of the Loud Speaker Act for religious sermons. But there were two main clauses: the government would conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the change of wording in the declaration alongside making the probe’s outcome public within 20 days; and that Rana Sanaullah would give explanation about his controversial statements in presence of religious scholars, which he eventually did. An Inquiry Committee was also established under Raja Zafarul Haq, senior PML-N leader and Leader of the House in the Senate. It was November 4 when the chief of Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah Pakistan Allama Sahibzada Peer Muhammad Ziaullah Qadri asked protesters to disperse and end the sit-in. Speaking at the occasion, Qadri expressed satisfaction on government’s quick action on the clause regarding Finality of Prophethood. But on the same day, another faction of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYRA) led by the fiery cleric Khadim Hussain Rizvi announced a long march towards Islamabad followed by a sit-in till his six demands were met. The demands included an end to restrictions on registration of FIRs under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, execution of all culprits involved in blasphemy cases, action against those involved in amending the affidavit of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat, abolition of the Loudspeaker Act, an end to all cases against leaders and workers of TLYRA and inclusion of Islamic teachings in the curriculum. The trail of govt follies: The TLYRA leaders had announced the long march and sit-in on November 4 with complete details of the starting point in Gujarat; the route they would take i.e. GT Road; and the location in Islamabad where they would give the sit-in. Punjab government, however, did not bother to either stop them or negotiate with them. One noteworthy point is that the major concern of sit-in I was the controversial statement of Rana Sanaullah, but this did not even figure in the charter of demands or concerns of sit-in II. Also, just before the start of sit-in II, Punjab Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif gave an emotional speech with his signature sentimental tone announcing that his party leader, i.e., Nawaz Sharif had ordered that ‘the minister responsible for this blunder should be ousted from the cabinet’. Now that was novel. So far, such a demand was not even part of the sit-ins narrative. After making the ridiculous statement that the change of wording in the declaration was a ‘clerical mistake’, the government came up with an amended bill reverting to the original wording of the declaration alongside the re-introduction of clause 7-A, which provided the right to challenge the declaration of a candidate if s/he is an Ahmadi and has declared her/himself a Muslim. This coincided with the arrival of TLYRA’s sit-in II in Islamabad. But that did not stop TLYRA leader to stop the sit-in. By then, he had adopted the announcement of Punjab Chief Minister about the ouster of the Law Minister, as the new and the only major demand. The sit-in and the aftermath: The city of Islamabad was effectively under siege. People could not commute between Rawalpindi and Islamabad; movement of supplies between the twin cities stopped; the timings of schools and offices got affected and life in Islamabad came to complete standstill. Many patients were prevented by the protesters from reaching hospitals in time, which resulted in the death of an eight-year-old child. The sit-in leaders continued their venomous speeches against not only the government but also media persons and TV channels which in their view were not giving them proper coverage or were covering their sit-in negatively. Every day new videos poured in of their speeches full of expletives and bizarrely made-up, unverified, and unauthentic stories about the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions, which in many cases were offensive for ordinary Muslims who know Holy Prophet (PBUH) as a role model of non-violence and ethical behaviour. The sit-in violated Section 144 of the Criminal Procedures Code (CrPC) that prevents large assemblies in the city, as well as the 2015 directive that designated the area near Faizabad Interchange (called Democracy Park ever since) as a site for protest activity. Not only that, the TLYRA were not given a No Objection Certificate (NoC) by the city administration to hold the protest in the city, but they still went ahead with their sit-in anyway. The sit-in turned violent within a few days as protesters started attacking passers-by and media persons. The court moved: The Islamabad High Court was moved by a petitioner against the sit-in. On Nov 17, the court ordered TLYRA to end the sit-in and vacate the bridge. The government started negotiations with the organisers but could not convince them to end the protest. The IHC gave notice of contempt of court to the city administration and the Interior Minister for not implementing the court order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also took notice of the sit-in and asked reports from different law enforcement and intelligence agencies about the details of the sit-in. However, when these reports were presented to the court on November 23rd, the two-member bench expressed its displeasure over the insufficient information in reports submitted by the ISI and the IB. The report by ISI informed the court that the objectives of the sit-in was political in nature and was aimed at gaining popular support for the upcoming general elections. But the information that the court was seeking, i.e., their source of livelihood, place of work, addresses, funding of their organisations, etc. was not in any of these reports. Conduct of political parties: Political parties remained ambivalent during the sit-in. The liberal Pakistan People’s Party failed to clearly condemn the sit-in leaders, except a tweet by the Chairperson of the party calling for the government to ‘do its constitutional duty’ with an affirmation that the party stands with democracy and democratic institutions. Different members of Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf sided with the sit-in leaders and issued video messages calling for the acceptance of all demands of TLYRA while criticising the government for ‘incompetence’ in stopping the sit-in. Despite having signed off the Elections Bill 2017, all parties including PML-N’s coalition partners conveniently shifted the entire blame on the government, and more specifically, on the Law Minister. Divisions within PML-N: During all these days, if one thing became clear, it was the inability of the ruling PML-N to come up with a strong and confident posture and an alternative narrative to the venomous speeches and hateful arguments of the sit-in leaders. Many from within the party exposed the ideological fissures within. Raja Zafarul Haq gave mixed signals on the issue, while the sitting Minister on Religious Affairs Peer Hasnaat refused to sit in the negotiations committee. The son-in-law of former PM Nawaz Sharif gave an interview announcing his support for the sit-in and calling it a ‘mission rather than a movement’. The media cries: While the courts were pressing the government hard on acting against the protesters to end the sit-in, the media also joined the frenzy by calling the government incompetent for not taking any action. This sounded like the pre-operation situation in 2007 when Lal Masjid had occupied Children Library violating the writ of the state. Besides, the government was hesitant to use force because of the disaster made in Model Town Lahore, back in 2014. After giving several deadlines that were not heeded by the protesters, the police operation was inevitable. On Saturday morning just before the operation was launched, all TV channels were served with a PEMRA notification directing them to not cover the operation live, and instead share information with the people in news bulletins only, with the reports confirmed from the operation in-charge. None of the channels obliged and the government found itself in the cul-de-sac where it saw only one way, i.e., putting all the channels off air, violating people’s right to information. On the one hand, it was an extreme step of blanket shutdown that even the dictatorial regime of Gen Pervez Musharraf had not taken. But on the other, it pointed to an important issue of the responsible conduct of the 24/7 news cycle. In 2009, during the attack on GHQ, similar orders were passed and the entire media had obliged. It is a moot point as to why the media did not consider a democratic government’s orders worthy of being heeded to, but had all ears to similar orders that came from the military. The civil-military (im)balance: In its order on November 24th, the IHC had emphasised that ‘sensitive institutions’ needed to dispel the impression that the sit-in was sponsored by the intelligence agencies. On the next hearing, the court ordered the sector commander of the ISI and the DG of the IB to appear in person to present their answers on it. The reading of the honourable court was not entirely baseless. This had indeed been an impression in both the pro-civilian and the pro-military quarters that relevant agencies under both the wings of the state might be responsible for the sit-in serving their own interests. The theory propagated by the civilians termed it a conspiracy against the PML-N by pitching the Barelvi sect against them prior to the general elections of 2018, as part of the election management as well as an attempt to dislodge the government through these religious extremists. The pro-military media proxies have been, on the other hand, propagating the conspiracy theory that the sit-in was provoked by the PML-N itself to divide the pro-PTI Barelvi vote in the upcoming elections. Also, that the PMLN was trying to pitch the army against the citizens by necessitating an army operation against the protesters. Interestingly, the sit-in speakers did not speak against the Punjab government or even Rana Sanaullah despite his controversial interview that had prompted their first sit-in. Neither did they repeat their diatribe against army, which they had been using quite generously during the sit-in following Mumtaz Qadri’s hanging. At that time, they had abused the then COAS General Raheel Sharif for supporting the execution. During this dharna, the speakers not only refrained from repeating the “allegations” against army officers of being Ahmadi but also unequivocally stated that their sit-in was in support of the narrative of the army. The army, Khadim Hussain Rizvi said in an interview with BBC, ‘would not do any operation against us because of this reason’. Whatever the case may be, whichever power centre might be supporting these hooligans to meet short term interests, this tried and tested route has never resulted in any good for the country. Whenever religious proxies have been used for political purpose, it has pushed the country several steps behind in terms of democratic development and socio-political progress. Published in Daily Times, November 26th 2017.