Replay – again

Pakistanis are now familiar with the situation. A banned, disruptive, extremist organisation with a large following of supporters decides to stage a long march or a sit-in or a dharna or whatever we wish to call it. The government succumbs to their demands, encouraging others to follow the same path in the future. Things are quiet for a while. And then the cycle repeats itself after a few months – and so it goes. The disruption to the life of citizens is forgotten – mostly since citizens don't really matter much. It is also damaging to our reputation as far as the FATF and other organisations go to unban a banned organisation or take it off the schedule of banned groups in some categories. This has happened once more with Sheikh Rasheed and a team made up of police officials and representatives of various departments striking a deal with the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) under which 350 activists of the group, including of course their leader Saad Rizvi, are to be freed after the prime minister has been briefed on the proceedings. The move will obviously not go down particularly well with the world, especially since one of the demands of the TLP was to expel the French ambassador. We assume this at least is not happening.

But more attention needs to be given to the kind of havoc played when huge hordes of mostly young men, often welding sticks, come out on the streets of cities like Lahore and Rawalpindi. On Sunday, for example, many routes in Lahore were blocked. Internet services have also been badly disrupted across Punjab, making work extremely difficult for many. This cannot be the way to run a country or to manage violent organisations.

We should not be allowing such breaches of law to take place. They simply throw the country into greater chaos and create new layers of violence. The deal with the TLP also sets a dangerous precedent which will be followed in the future. The organisation has, after all, been banned. The question arises of whether the government should even be negotiating with banned, proscribed organisations at all. We need a clear strategy in this and a decision on what to do in the future. What this means for the government is a question that needs to be asked. If a government caves in so easily to such groups it cannot hope to maintain law and order in the country, or to establish the writ that the government should have in order to manage any nation, especially one which is so prone to violence, and so indifferent to the suffering of its citizens as a result of the violence that breaks out every few months. The state has a long and ignoble history of breaking up protests that are far more worthy than this one. Political dissidents, lawyers and doctors have all felt the wrath of the state. Why then are violent extremists allowed to take over the country and start making demands? And why does the state seem so toothless every time this happens?