The Faizabad dharna by Khadim Hussain Rizvi and his Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan last November was an embarrassment for the state. Multiple orders by the Islamabad High Court to end the dharna went unheeded and when the government did try to take action against Rizvi it was criticised for using excessive force, with the various courts’ stance not exactly very clear on the problem. The agreement that eventually brought an end to the sit-in was a low moment in our history as a group of 2000 men negotiated with the state as equals and secured what was essentially a defeat. Every institution was part of those negotiations and all were tainted by it.
Four months on Rizvi still roams free despite inciting violence. On Monday, an Anti-Terrorist Court ordered the government to arrest Rizvi and anyone else absconding in the cases registered against them. Ideally, the government would do just that, but there is once again the fear that any action against Rizvi will lead to violence. As was the case before, it appears the government is expected to act on its own. It again finds itself in a damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t position, and may be worried that certain elements might take advantage of any attempt to arrest Rizvi by stirring up trouble . There is also the matter of the opposition which has exposed itself to be entirely without scruples in using religion for power. The courts too then may disapprove of the measures required to maintain order.
The SC has meanwhile been presented with an ISI report on the Faizabad dharna. The court has rejected that report, finding it insufficient, among other things, in details about Rizvi’s income. This too strengthens the impression that institutions of the state may not be acting in harmony. It is obviously imperative that in such a situation all institutions stand together. The executive, currently perhaps its weakest wing, would require support from other institutions if it is to bring in Rizvi. A unified strategy would make sense but during the Faizabad episode the government’s request for assistance had only led to embarrassment. It is difficult to understand what the court expects the government to do. Our police force, the security agency directly under executive command, is not known for its competence and, let’s admit, cannot be expected to do much when the overwhelming impression is that of powerful institutions of the state being at odds on the issue with the government. On the other hand, Rizvi – feeling quite secure for whatever reason – is capable of creating a great deal of trouble. At the moment all state institutions need to recognise that the TLP and other such groups present a direct threat, gaining votes in electoral contests. A broad understanding is required on how to handle this situation.