It was a deeply distressing sight on TV screens. A gunman firing straight into PTI protesters killing one young activist and injuring at least two others while the police watched as passive bystanders. After the job was done the killer and an accomplice calmly escaped from the scene.
In a race to identify the shooter, the media named one Nadeem Moghal. The FIR lodged with a local police station named Nadeem and another person, Imtiaz, for the murder along with PML-N's local leaders among nearly 300 others. At his news conference the next day, Rana Sanaullah, who had to resign as Punjab law minister for his alleged role in the Model Town firing infamy that left 14 people dead and more than 80 with bullet wounds, was his usual unrepentant self . Instead of expressing regret over the loss of life and taking responsibility to catch the killer, he spent the time absolving himself and the government of any liability. He produced two men before the reporters, who claimed to be the persons named in the FIR but whose faces did not match that of the killer seen in media photos. Rana went on to rant and rave against the PTI for resorting to politics of violence, but did not deem it necessary to explain why the police did not nab the killer. Instead he tried to lend mystery to the killer's identity, saying he might belong to some terrorist organisation. In other words, no one should expect his arrest.
There is hardly any mystery to the event, though. Soon after the PTI announced its 'Plan C' to press its demand for the constitution of a judicial commission and a joint investigation team to examine alleged electoral fraud, the Punjab government got active to counter the protest. According to media reports, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif's son, Hamza Shahbaz, an MNA who virtually acts as deputy chief minister, held a meeting where it was decided to respond to PTI's shutdown plan with his side's own confrontation strategy. A day before the scheduled shutdown, Rana also got together with his men to fine-tune his party's response. As soon as PTI workers came out to block the city's main arteries by burning tyres - common practice in this country - Nawaz Leaguers appeared to clash with them. The ensuing chaos led to the loss of a precious life.
Protest being a democratic right there was no justification whatsoever for the government to react the way it did to road blocking by PTI workers. Just a few days ago, the JUI-F had blocked roads in various parts of the country, including in KPK and Sindh, to vent anger and anguish over the murder of a party leader. No one tried to stop them. In fact, almost all parties extended their sympathies to JUI-F. If that was acceptable so should have been PTI's protest. The problem, of course, is not the mode of protest but the issue behind it.
Even so, the ruling party would have been wise to let the PTI take out steam. Whatever Imran had wanted to do would have fizzled out by the day's end. Why then it decided to use strong-arm methods? Was it a case of miscalculation? Probably not. The reaction seems to come from a mixture of arrogance and fear of losing the ongoing argument about alleged electoral rigging, and consequently power. This is not the first time this government has resorted to physical force to stamp out protest. There is a pattern of violent behaviour. First, the Punjab Police fired into PAT's Model Town headquarters leaving 14 people dead and over 80 others injured. (Those who contend that the Army refused to open fire on demonstrators during the PNA movement against ZAB's government because a predominately Punjabi Army wouldn't kill Punjabis, need to take note how readily Punjabi police mowed down mostly Punjabi followers of the Qadri cult. Power knows no ethnicity, only interests). PAT chief's offensive antics notwithstanding, no one deserves to die for their political or religious beliefs. In a second incident, Nawaz Leaguers attacked a PTI procession in Gujranwala, injuring several people. Third time, several people were killed when PAT and PTI workers marched on the Parliament building. Indeed, symbols of the State like that building needed to be protected. But that could be done without resort to extreme violence. Fourth time, PTI workers on their way to attend a party rally in Jhelum were fired upon by guards of a former PML-N MPA, Nadeem Khadim, killing a 21-year-old man and causing bullet wounds to eight others. Khadim did not deny his guards' involvements, claiming instead they acted in self-defence. Faisalabad's is the fifth time this government has tried to stop opposition protest with bullets, causing the death of a young man. It is no coincidence that in all these cases, the dead and the injured belonged to the opposition.
This is not how democracies deal with protest. Take the example of the US where exoneration by grand juries of white policemen responsible for killing - in separate incidents - two unarmed Afro-Americans has triggered countrywide protests. Some of the protesters have been pelting stones, even smashing vehicles, and in one incident in Berkeley they blocked an Amtrak train, yet state governments exercised restraint to control aggressive crowds. In sharp contrast, our government has had no qualms about killing people for similar activities. The ruling party must answer for its brutalities against political activists. FIRs have been registered with the police in all cases. How the system deals with these murderous acts is a test this democracy must pass.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.