When the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave its judgment in the Asia Bibi case I thought the postponed writ might limp back to take its place in the hierarchy of the writs of states. When the Prime Minister of Pakistan gave his speech promising to uphold that writ, I thought there was finally a silver lining of sorts. But what puzzled me even at that time was that the state had done nothing practical to uphold that writ. I mean if the twitter account of Maulana Khadim Rizvi could be closed down after the mayhem of three days why could it not be closed down then? Most states do not allow such mayhem to take place when they are sure that something will precipitate it. Why hark back to the arrests of such icons as Gandhi in pre-partition days, let us just remember the arrests of those hundreds of the supporters of Nawaz Sharif who were just going to the airport to welcome him back in July 2017. They were arrested days before the event from their homes though the most they would have done was to raise a few slogans in their leaders’ support. And what about the arrests of Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, university professors, bureaucrats and ethnic activists. None of these people challenged the state; none of them incited generals to oust their own chief from his post; none of them called for the removal of an elected government calling the prime minister Jewish. And yet all were arrested and insulted in the process but there was no protective custody for people who were threatening to bring life to a standstill the next morning. I remember that when ZAButto was about to be hanged there was a soldier on every major street of the cities of Pakistan. Even Armoured Personnel Carriers with gun-toting soldiers were out in an impressive show of force. That is why nobody dared come out and the event became history. One does not understand why the state abdicated its responsibility after having raised such high hopes that this time around things will be different. Moreover, this was a rare opportunity for the PTI’s government since the opposition, the civil society, the army, the higher judiciary, the media and world opinion supported it unanimously. And yet the government took no preemptive action to ensure that streets would not be blocked and the protest would not take place at all or be weak and leaderless and, of course, non-violent. Now that all this had not been done and the protest took the form it did, I think the government had few choices. Firing on the protesters was ruled out as it would be cruel and morally unjustifiable. Moreover, the use of force is hardly successful in democracies and especially South Asian ones since we are also ‘soft states’ when it comes to religious protestors. So, while I agree that the government should not have fired upon the protestors, I still question the non-use of water cannons and even tear gas. When the protestors were actually burning things and breaking vehicles, the police or the rangers or both could have used such measures to disperse them taking care that no trigger happy soldier should open fire. This did not happen and it did give the impression that the state cannot impose its writ. What about the arrests of Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, university professors, bureaucrats and ethnic activists. None of these people challenged the state; none of them incited generals to oust their own chief from his post; none of them called for the removal of an elected government calling the prime minister Jewish. And yet all were arrested and insulted in the process but there was no protective custody for people who were threatening to bring life to a standstill the next morning Although many people have written the history of the erosion of the writ of the state — witness Raza Rumi’s and a number of other articles in this daily of 04 November — I am tempted to add my voice (however ineffectual and weak) to this narrative. The Pakistani state did not give in to the rioters against Ahmadis in 1953 when martial law was imposed in Lahore. In 1974 June when the same thing happened ZABhutto, otherwise calling himself a democrat and a leader of the political left, took upon himself to use the state machinery to define the religion of citizens. This time the Ahmadis were declared a religious minority and violence against them is the norm since then. Then Ziaul Haq strengthened the religious right while taking care that he used them and was not controlled by them. But Nawaz Sharif, at that time his protégé, appeased them to garner their votes and then appeared surprised when they could not be controlled by his weak government. The PTI’s rise to power also appeased the same elements. The religious right broke away from Nawaz Sharif much to the glee of the PTI and duringthe last demonstration by Maulana Rizvi the government of the day was let down very badly by none other than the institutions of the state. If you have forgotten that the interior minister, AhsanIqbal, was not obeyed by the rangers; that an officer of the rank of major general of the rangers actually distributed cheques to the rioters, you can see clips to refresh your memory. In the selfish vision which politics engenders in political partisans, nobody seems to have noticed that it is not just the PML(N) government which is being weakened but the writ of the state itself. Yet another thing which weakens the writ of the state is inaction and apparent capitulation to unconstitutional, powerful actors. We saw this happening in FATA again and again till the Taliban played football with the heads of soldiers of the Pakistan army. When at last the armed forces retaliated they had to use jets and gunship helicopters and lose their own soldiers and young officers in battle because they had neither used the American military strength — drones were used by the Pakistani leadership but they always lied to their people about it — nor their own when the opponent was still weak. Then came Swat when the PPP government actually gave away a part of Pakistan, abandoning its citizens to the mercy of the Taliban, and lost its writ entirely in that part of the world. Had the Taliban not moved even further threatening the Tarbela Dam they might be ruling Swat even now. But then the Pakistan army took action and established the writ of the state at great cost to soldiers and civilians alike. Similarly, when the Lal Masjid crisis was going on I happened to have talked to a minister and a retired general of the Pervez Musharraf government who asked me what was the best way out of the crisis. This was April and I said one could cut electricity and stop other resources from reaching the mosque and they would negotiate. Using force, in my view, was both counterproductive and morally reprehensible. Inaction was a sure way of compromising the writ of the state and ensuring that easy solutions would be impossible. This was just an informal conversation so there was no chance of any change in policy. We blundered on and when action was finally taken it was much too violent and also avoidable. It did not establish the writ of the state because for years onwards the urban areas of Pakistan faced suicide bombings and other violence which might have been avoided if the state had not postponed imposing its writ when there was a chance that it could be done without violence. Political analysts tell us that the state has actually used the religious forces for its own purposes: as instruments of foreign policy; as non-state actors to fight its battles; as street power to weaken politicians who are no longer favoured by the establishment and so on. This might well be true but all sections of the state need a powerful and affluent state. No economic progress, not even foreign investment, is possible unless the state controls the instruments of coercion with no share for any unconstitutional actor. Once the state does establishes its writ over the whole pie, everyone can get a share of the pie. If this home truth sinks in, many of our policies eroding the writ of the state for generations may be rolled back. Now the ball is in the Supreme Court again leaving the judges to the mercy of the irate clerics. What will happen if the Court upholds its previous judgment? The answer to that will decide whether we will continue to postpone the writ of the state or find a solution which is constitutional, just and, as far as possible, non-violent. The author is an occasional, freelance columnist Published in Daily Times, November 8th 2018.