In response to bad behaviour of children, if parents lose their temper they invariably teach their offspring the very lesson they did not intend them to learn: that getting angry and being out of control is justified, and is the right thing to do. It does not matter afterwards how often they advise their children about virtues of patience and forbearance, children are not going to learn those principles. They would only learn how the problem is solved in reality.
Being parents we all know that children misbehave and push our buttons. Is it a surprise? Sometimes they push our buttons with such tenacity that we want to smack them. However, if we show our weakness and vulnerability at any point, trust me, by yelling, throwing things or hitting them, we lose the battle even before it has begun. The same rule holds true for the state and its citizens as the state like a parent carries the responsibility of protecting its people and taking care of their basic needs. Criminals in this example can be understood as difficult children, the ones who do not follow the rules, and those who push our buttons.
Some of these criminals are so cunning that they hide behind a political facade, their ethnic background providing them a protective shield, their cultural distinction creating a barrier. If these offenders bear organisational skills on top, they can wreak havoc in the state. How? Deceit and trickery. Most importantly, they can disguise their violent members as political workers who depending on the situation change their hats, obfuscating the difference between a peaceful member of society and the one who destroys it.
On the other hand, the state wants to maintain law and order, and it cannot tolerate such elements running freely. However, the moment it loses its temper and crosses a delicate legal boundary, it also loses the battle that has not even begun. True, the state with all sincerity is trying to reassure the people that no one should break the law. Citizens though, as in the case of children, through the actions of the agencies are learning just the opposite: 1) might is right, and 2) breaking the rules and regulations can be justified if done in uniform.
Do you appreciate now how crucial it is for the state to follow a strict code of conduct, a code that is much stricter than what it plans to implement on her citizens? The point is even when it can teach a lesson to these offenders, it must not attempt to do so on its own without the due process of law.
This analogy of the state and citizens, and parents and children, best describes, in my opinion, what is going on in Karachi for the last three years, but more so after the controversial speech of Altaf Hussain in August.
In response to the alleged violence of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and its workers, the state through the Rangers has unleashed more violence upon them; some of them have been arrested and tortured, their offices torn down, and party leaders forced to live in exile or made to go in hiding. While this is going on, the judiciary that had to stand in front is sipping a cup of tea somewhere behind the scenes indifferent and unruffled.
What has made the situation even more precarious is that people now also accuse the agencies of not letting the judges take independent decisions, forcing them to tilt against the MQM. The most obvious example is of the imprisonment of the mayor of Karachi, Waseem Akhtar, who appeared before the court confident that the cases against him did not stand a chance to win. He was denied bail, and was put behind bars under suspicious circumstances.
If it is true, the whole system has been turned upside down, and the place of justice has been converted into a place of oppression. People argue that the act of pressurising the judiciary is same as the act of infiltrating a political party with criminals. Why? It is because judges who do not perform their duties honestly also aid in promoting crime, violence and illegality. Frustrated by a blatant and unchecked use of power, many are concerned that the state does not even bother to go through the process sometimes. If their suspicion is high, the body of the accused is found on the street, a daring example of ‘reverse’ target killing.
In any case, the current harsh and violent path that the federal government has opted is a slippery slope with the potential of huge losses in future and a minimum short-term gain. If long-term success is required the state must show strength through restraint, and by following the rule of law, not by breaking it.
The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at [email protected]