The week-long sit-in in the capital is now fast becoming a national crisis. But the way things are in Pakistan, such crises will likely keep recurring down the road. Question is: can the average citizens do something about it?
As with previous sit-in’s ballooning into urban paralysis, this time, too, the law enforcement authorities and their political bosses are squarely at fault for not maintaining order in the capital.
State has to have a monopoly over violence, but in Pakistan it’s different. Too often, the state feels weak in front of hardliners and fanatics. From the Red Mosque fiasco in 2007 to the current state of affairs on the Faizabad Interchange, both military and civilian governments tried appeasement, but to worse outcomes.
When state feels feeble, must the peace-loving citizens come out and strengthen the moral writ of the state? Examples from other countries – both developed and developing nations – give the answer in the affirmative.
Reasonable citizens within a country can and must differ on their idea of what is the right direction for their country and society. From New Delhi to New York, and from Dhaka to Dublin, counter-protests are seen frequently, conducted within the ambit of law, on social and political issues.
Narratives are best judged when they are exposed to counter narratives. But in Pakistan, one sees two major issues regarding building counter narratives.
One is that the ‘silent majority’ – which goes about their lives every day without much fuss – somehow remains deaf, mute and blind in front of a vocal minority high-jacking politics or religion to further their limited agendas. Worse, the silent majority also seems content with the economic misery wrought on them when protests result in market closures, traffic jams and other difficulties in going about daily life.
And two, because the silent majority doesn’t speak up or come out on the roads to rally for their rights as enshrined in the constitution, the state finds it really easy to manufacture certain narratives that suit the powerful elite in this country. Then, even genuine protests – be it of political or religious kind – also end up being manipulated, as the state always comes on top in the end in front of hapless protesters.
If Pakistan is to thrive as a democratic country that ensures constitutional rights of its citizens, the real onus perhaps lies on the silent majority. Just voting every four, five years is not enough. Citizens have to be ready to demand and defend their rights in a peaceful manner. But will Pakistan’s fragmented silent majority rise above the din of ethnic, sectarian and political differences to claim the promised freedoms?
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.