Peaceful protests serve as a means for the public to express their opinions and claim their rights. In democratic societies, this is recognized as a fundamental right, allowing citizens to voice their support or dissent regarding policies, decisions, laws, or situations. Within the bounds of the law, protesting is a legitimate right. Peaceful protests are characterized by the absence of extremism and violence, maintaining open channels for dialogue and negotiation between the government, law enforcement agencies, and the protesters. Both the state and the protesters bear the responsibility of ensuring that protests remain peaceful to prevent societal chaos.
Unfortunately, on November 24, the protests demonstrated a failure by both the government and the leadership of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to maintain peace. The government made extensive efforts to suppress and halt the protests, despite the protesters’ constitutional right to demonstrate. These attempts included excessive use of force to crush the demonstrators. Road closures in various cities caused immense difficulties for the public.
In Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, key highways and motorways were shut down as part of safety measures. Containers were deployed, and law enforcement personnel were stationed at various points. Disruptions in bus terminals and rail services in cities like Lahore and Rawalpindi left travelers in distress. On motorways, people faced significant challenges, with some unable to reach their destinations.
In one incident, a heart patient in Rawalpindi had to be transported to a hospital on a motorcycle due to the unavailability of an ambulance. Section 144 was imposed to restrict gatherings, and facilities like hotels were also closed, pushing people into a state reminiscent of earlier eras. Despite these obstacles, people persisted, leading to the government resorting to tear gas. These measures escalated the protests towards disorder.
On the other hand, PTI’s leadership failed to ensure a peaceful protest. Protests always require dialogue to remain open, but PTI was unwilling to engage in negotiations. A protest does not typically have a “final call,” as its purpose is to be peaceful, not confrontational. When the government offered designated areas for protests, such as Sangjani and Sector 26, there was no need to push towards D-Chowk. Repeated invitations for negotiations from the government were also ignored.
Additionally, leaving protestors without leadership led to chaos, as leaderless protestors are prone to disarray. On social media, PTI members spoke of “revolution,” but revolutions require proper preparation and sacrifices, neither of which was evident. The absence of PTI leadership during the protests further disillusioned their followers.
Another question that arose was regarding the alleged casualties during the protest. PTI leaders claimed varying numbers, with some stating 200 deaths. However, such a large number of casualties would leave evidence – bodies, bloodstains, or grieving families – but none were visible. Even journalists and YouTubers present at the scene failed to report any such evidence. The claims of mass casualties appeared to be an attempt by PTI leadership to cover their failure. The government, on the other hand, denied any fatalities, which is also unlikely. It is plausible that some individuals lost their lives, and such incidents must be condemned.
The use of firearms against unarmed citizens is a grave crime, violating legal, moral, and humanitarian principles. This is a glaring example of the government’s incompetence and cowardice. The government’s actions, such as calling in the army, road closures, arrests, and imprisonments, are condemnable. These policies have bred resentment among the public instead of fostering unity, which is detrimental to the state. Young activists have grown disillusioned with both the leadership and the government. This disillusionment could lead to extremist organizations exploiting and recruiting these youth, posing a grave threat to Pakistan.
