It now seems like a long time since Prime Minister Imran Khan made his address to the nation on October 31 before departing to China. For once, he spoke like a leader ready to exercise his authority in the face of forbidding odds. It prompted even some of his harsh critics to applaud his ‘finest hour’.
What has happened since then is another dark chapter in our history of giving in to the obscurantist forces of bigotry and hate. And we have reached a point where those who have presided over national policies should finally become aware of what is really at stake.
After those three days of protest last week that left the entire nation in disarray, confusion about this government’s sense of direction and its ability to contend with this crisis has deepened. With all the glory that it confers on Imran Khan, the PTI, for all practical purposes, is devoid of leadership, particularly in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s acquittal of Aasia Bibi.
By way of providing a backdrop to the present shenanigans of the PTI warriors, those who have apparently been assigned to harass the opposition in loud voices, we must recall how Imran Khan had vowed to establish the writ of the state in his address to the nation.
Stressing that the Supreme Court judgment was in accordance with the constitution, the PM lamented that some elements were inciting violence. He warned protesters out on the streets in different cities that a “clash with the state will lead to severe consequences”. He asserted: “Do not harm our country otherwise the state will fulfil its responsibility and take all possible steps to protect the lives and properties of the people”.
There was more. While the mainstream media had restrained itself from releasing some incendiary remarks of the protesting TLP leader, though the clips were available in social media, it was Imran himself who spoke about the threat made to the judges and the army leadership.
In any case, Imran Khan’s resolve to protect the writ of the state was very encouraging. It gave the impression that for the first time a government was willing to take on the bigots. We anticipated a shift in the policy of appeasement and compromise. The most recent surrender in this respect was the resolution of last year’s sit-in on Faizabad Interchange in Islamabad by TLP mobs. The thought that everyone was on the same page also raised hope that the outcome could be different this time.
We all know what actually happened. After the agreement between the government and the TLP, a campaign was launched to arrest those who had indulged in acts of violence, with the help of the videos of the incidents. But there is an intriguing twist in this tale. After some statements from the likes of the Punjab information minister, Minister of State for Interior Shehryar Afridi stood up in the Senate on Thursday and, virtually, put the final nail in Imran Khan’s address to the nation.
In the first place, Shehryar Afridi said that activists of some political parties, including the PML-N, were responsible for the incidents of violence during the three-day protest against Aasia Bibi’s acquittal.
The key point he made in the speech was that the government would not go after the TLP leadership, but would embrace and engage them in dialogue. As one published report stated, “he chided those criticising the TLP leaders for using derogatory language against the judiciary, military and government and said they had apologised for it in the agreement”.
Incidentally, the five-point agreement that ended the protest doesn’t include this apology in any specific terms. Besides, the attacks that were made against the judges, the army leadership and the prime minister were so obviously an act of treason and it is hard to believe that they could be erased by a camouflaged regret on the part of the culprits. You have to hear that language to see who has the upper hand in this engagement.
This approach on the part of the PTI government raises many questions about its state of mind and its ideological bearings. With a charismatic leader at its helm, it should have some clarity about where it is going. Perhaps the fault lies in the intellectual capacity of the party in a collective sense. It has shown little sense of history or of the compulsions that arise from living in modern times. We shouldn’t forget that Imran Khan invokes, simultaneously, the state of Medina, the Scandinavian welfare democracy and the Chinese model as his goals.
The problem is that the nation will have to bear the cost of this ‘doublethink’. Imran Khan certainly has considerable support for the kind of ‘tabdeeli’ that he prescribes. High corruption among politicians and bureaucrats – ignoring some other categories – is also a major source of popular discontent. However, this government is not attending to the state of a society that has been held hostage by religious extremism and suffers from a debilitating lack of enlightenment and social justice.
So, can Imran Khan walk hand in hand with, say, Khadim Hussain Rizvi to realise his dream of Naya Pakistan? The irony is that quite a few elements in his party would be happy to have this alliance while so many others will pull in the other direction. In some ways, the PML-N has the same problem. As for the PPP, its progressive credentials have been tarnished by its politics in Sindh.
In this situation, concerned citizens who aspire for a meaningful, democratic dispensation feel helpless against the rising tide of extremism and intolerance. This government is unable to enforce the writ of the state. If it is at all serious in establishing its lawful authority, it must confront those who are challenging the very legitimacy of the state.
On Wednesday, social activists and human rights defenders gathered at the Karachi Press Club to criticise the government for “giving in” to radical forces while welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision to take suo-motu notice of the damage that was caused by protesters.
One major concern that was expressed was about the double standards of the government. As Jibran Nasir put it, one group that staged a protest for its rights was called a “traitor” while another that screamed for mutiny was offered talks and agreement. And in this duality, the state has almost lost its writ. We already have considerable experience of living in such a state.
The writer is a senior journalist.
Email: ghazi_salahuddinhotmail.com