Daily Times

All is well known, everything is obvious and all too familiar. The last four years witnessed so much, no longer needing contacts in the power corridors nor a sophisticated mind to analyse and draw political conclusion of the various plots of a familiar drama. No matter how it behaves, a lamb is always in the wrong to a starved wolf. If the aim is to get someone’s head a limb does not serve the purpose.

The current mayhem is ignited by a clerical mistake, as explained by the government, in the terminology of oath in the finality of the prophet hood of Mohammad (SAW) required by a Muslim candidate contesting election to the parliament under the election rules.

The issue should have settled when the parliament rectified the text by restoring its original form and signing of an agreement by the government with protesters by acceding to more demands in addition to the oath issue. On November 4, the protest was seemingly called off by one of the leaders. But as the events and situation unfolded, obviously the underlying purpose was political and ominous.

Thus, a fresh contingent of firebrands arrived on the scene of the Faizabad sit-in Islamabad, unequivocally demanding the resignation of law minster, Zahid Hamid, meant to blast the federal government that could possibly be followed by accusing the law minster, particularly the cabinet and perhaps the parliament, of committing blasphemy. By now everybody knows the consequences of even alluding to blasphemy in this ideologically pure land.

This time the government was bereft of the luxury to exhaust and caused fatigue to the protesters by ignoring or tolerating the sit-in at the juncture of Islamabad and Rawalpindi like the PTI’s sit-in of 126 days in the ‘Red Zone’ of the capital.

The obvious move of these sit-ins and protests so far is to push the elected government into an impasse and sap its credibility to erode its lawful authority and dent its support base in the forthcoming general election

When the ringleaders, in the form of Imran Khan PTI and Qadri PAT forced their entry into the ‘red zone’ our lords, federal ministers, public servants and parliamentarians had to take the alternate back route to reach office to discharge their duties. But I don’t remember our lords in the Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court showed as much concern to call the then interior minister in person to explain why the federal government failed to restore the writ of the state in the so-called ‘Red Zone’ and citizens’ unhindered access to key government offices and services.

One of the surprising elements revolving around this sit-in dominating the media hype and narrative is the infringement of citizens’ constitutional right to free movement and the federal government’s inaction to restore order. It was turned into a basic point first by the Islamabad High Court and later in a suomoto by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One should appreciate the cognizance of the superior judiciary against the violation of the assorted constitutional articles at a time when the entire constitutional edifice stands challenged and trembling.

The federal government found itself between the proverbial ‘devil and the deep blue sea’ situation. In case of inaction, its interior minister was put on red notice of contempt of court by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The media gave its verdict by accusing him of ineffectiveness thereby compromising the writ of the state.

The Islamabad High Court gave a deadline to the interior minister with a forewarning of contempt of court upon failure of compliance. The only condition for peaceful settlement was the removal of the law minister which was wrought with serious political repercussions for the government. Similar to the past experience in the case of Mushahidullah, Pervaz Rasheed and Fatimi, It is not certain whether the sacrifice of the minister would let the government off the hook.

In case of inaction the government may lose its interior minister to contempt of court. In any case, the head of either minister was on the altar. The push from all sides was to root out the sit-in by all means but with no support in case things got heated up. Perhaps, the professor minister of interior and his government could read the bylines between the lines that things could end up with the use of force by a government that has no control on the course of events in a situation characterised by lack of coordination, understanding and underlying objectives of the state institutions. Possibly, the incident of October 2nd in the judicial complex of Islamabad was on the back of mind of the interior minister of how much he would be in charge and in control of the situation in case of action.

Perhaps, he preferred appearing in the IHC giving explanations and to buy time for the elusive peaceful settlement to avoid use of force. It was obvious that the use of force by a beleaguered federal government would trigger anti government protests particularly in Punjab, the main support base of Nawaz Sharif.

A few days before, the DG ISPR issued the army would carry out orders according when called by the government. But within hours of the initiation of police action the DG, ISPR in his tweet advised the government to refrain from use of force and calling ‘both sides’ for peaceful settlement. Some news papers also reported that army sought answers for some questions regarding the deployment of troops and also were of the opinion that the police force was not use to its uptime level.

Placing the mob which was called by the court unlawful on the same level as the federal government raised many eyebrows. Moreover, the ISPR’s tweet reminded everyone of its statement issued at the time when the PTI and PAT workers illegally entered the ‘Red Zone in August 2014 wherein the army asked the government not to use force against the protesters.

Immediately, after the police action against the sit-in that was called unlawful by the court, the narrative of those holding the government responsible for inaction changed to the opposite by blaming the government for mishandling and use of force. How can a constrained government be expected to function effectively? The obvious move of these sit-ins and protests so far is to push the elected government into an impasse and sap its credibility to erode its lawful authority and denting its support base in the forthcoming general election.

*This draft was written before the government entered into an agreement with protesters camped out at Faizabad interchange.

The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat

Published in Daily Times, November 28^th 2017.