There comes the occasions where we are abruptly confronted with certain indecent proposals. These are often turned down, sometimes with the same indecent rejection and the other times with the decent but firm reaction. Nay, for some other situations, people have no other option but to accept these indecent presumptions offered in the various circumstances.
Such indecent presumptions are not new to the socio-political culture of Pakistan. May it be the issue of recent judgments on the Panama serial or any politico-religious movements such as those against Ahmedies, Shias or even against ZA Bhutto in his own regime in the past. But the fact which remained imprint on the marks of history is that it laid far reaching impact on the society and state, maybe negative as well as positive.
There is a maxim that history repeats itself. But what we have learnt from the history is that we have learnt nothing from the history. Thus, what we can reach at is that the maxim is only half true. From both angles, it may be half true from the one angle that it not always repeats itself with the same dynamics. And from the other angle that, yes, it always repeats itself but tools and methodology to handle the issues involved have always been variable in their application and results.
Even today, certain indecent presumptions can be traced, perhaps, relying not upon the cogent and incriminating evidence but upon circumstantial evidence. In order to rule out the authenticity or otherwise incredibility of such presumptions, certain issues are framed which are enumerated as under.
Why the Tehrik-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah protesters at Islamabad remained persistent to continue with the protest even after no cause of action remained behind to agitate once the necessary amendments were made in the offending clauses of the declaration of the candidates before the election commission? Why the government remained adamant to withdraw its Minister knowingly that this has always stood a sensitive issue, especially when its top political leadership is fighting a four corner battle to its very survival? Why the government preferred to execute the order of the Islamabad High court in preference to the pendency of the subject matter at Supreme court of Pakistan? Why the army initially was reluctant to come into the aid of civil administration when its assistance was duly sought under Article 245 of the Constitution and tweeting advice to the government to show ‘restraint’ in use of force besides rendering the government and the protesters as the equal ‘parties?’
One group of analysts believes that government has objectives far beyond establishing its writ in the circumstances. One segment in the PML(N) party was most willing to withdraw Minister of Law despite the cause of action had been redressed whereas the other group, perhaps, lead by the president of the party wanted to catch the tide to his favour, especially in the stiff circumstances he and his family is facing, under the prevailing perception that these ‘handful people are not alone and are being backed by certain seen and unseen elements’ to derail democracy in the country. As a political gimmick, the analysts of this group believe, the strengthening of this indecent perception can benefit the PML (N) by way of establishing its thesis that it is being punished for some of its deeds in the name of Panama cases and tilt towards few neighboring and international ‘personalities.’ The corollary to the Dawn leaks and other allied incidents is also connected to the current series of events. That’s, perhaps, why the interior minister opted for operation in difference to the other opinions preferring withdrawal of the minister and opposing to the operation found within the party. The proponents of this view in the analysts and the media are of the view that such critical circumstances can strengthen the general current and historical perceptions that circumstances are created to justify the interventions in the political growth of the country and this view can most benefit the ruling party in the public in the wake of prevailing circumstances in the country.
The other segment of analysts believes that the political and non-political elements have no role to play behind these circumstances. They presume that PML (N) has failed to successfully handle the situation being devoid of an effective prime minister at the helm of affairs. This segment believes that there was no harm in withdrawing its minister which in the developed democracies is a routine under such circumstances where some intentional or un-intentional errors are committed by the political leaders. They substantiate it with the argument that if Pervaiz Rasheed and Ishaq Dar could be withdrawn without affecting the writ of the State why not Zahid Hamid who at least attempted but subsequently rectified the erroneous move which might not have necessarily been initiated singly by him but jointly by the members of the concerned parliamentary committee.
Another group of the analysts believe that the writ of the state and government should have been established and such handful elements should not be allowed to disrupt ‘the law and order situation’ leading to the failure of the state machinery providing justification for intervention of non-political elements while deciding the same in the courts of law at any point of time subsequently. This group believes it to be untenable that how a handful of people could render the state machinery to be an utter failure that, too, only in the Punjab and Capital where the political shoe actually pinches sans other provinces like KP, Baluchistan, Sindh and especially Karachi where the hub of Sunni movements hinges around.
There is yet another segment of politicians, analysts, media and their allies which maintains that the allegations and the cases against the ruling family, which prima facie, have strong grounds should be carried to their logical conclusion and the ruling party be ousted from politics at least for a reasonable time. Even otherwise, this segment would never wish to lose the victory got so far by them and remaining in the offing. According to them, they would attempt to barricade all movements leading towards smooth sailing of the ruling party and would never let it go to its favour, which are frustrating and detrimental to their ideals set so far.
On the face of it, it never seems to be purely a religious movement by Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah. True that it might be aiming at creating a deterrence for the future parliamentarians to be extraordinary careful in future while touching such sensitive issues disturbing the very sentiments of the Muslims of Pakistan. This is also true that Muslims of Pakistan including ourselves in general and religious parties in particular are most sensitive to the religious issues and the articles of faith, especially the finality of the Prophet hood of Muhammad(PBUH) and can never compromise their faith in any circumstances. Even true it is that such sensitivities are also exploited to the personal interests of the politico-religious elements in the country. It is also beyond any doubt that PML(N) has been a right wing party and perhaps its top leadership still carries religious tilt in its bearing despite ‘untidy’ allegations.
The effect and outcome of the circumstances would itself prove by the time the various ‘indecent presumptions’ as noted above but the fact remains that the ruling party at length seems to have not been able to tackle the issue to its logical conclusions so far and has itself provided opportunities to its opponents to make mountain out of a molehill.