There exists a shroud of mystery surrounding the exact events that happened during the Faizabad dharna; the three day protest, and the ensuing collusion with the government, and then the peace deal of the establishment are events that majorly impacted public life, and thus are ones which require public transparency and scrutiny.

Three months after the dharna, there appears to be some semblance of accountability from the establishment. Some progress has been made towards countering this wave of extremism- as Khadim Rizvi has had an FIR against him for the death of a child in the dharna. Also importantly, the Inter Service Intelligence (ISI), before the SC, has submitted a comprehensive report detailing its version of the events that occurred. In the report, it is stated that the ISI had recommended that the federal government avoid the use of force and resolve the issue peacefully through negations with Tehreek-e-Labbaik (TLYR).

The report may be an attempt from the establishment to provide a reassuring narrative, but it really does the opposite. The Judges of the Supreme Court have termed it as “unsatisfactory” and rightly so, as it seems another attempt to distract from the real questions and shift blame. There were some imperative questions asked by the Court, which we, as citizens, had the right to know under accountability and right to information. However, instead of providing details on who is financially supporting the TLP, who provided logistical support to the dharna, who among the army authorised and paid the protesters after the agreement and other answers to the specific questions of the court, the ISI report reads like a badly informed narrative whose primary objective seems to be bashing the government in its inability to manage the dharna.

While the PML-N conduct during the dharna was undeniably botched, the purpose of this specific report was to seek a detailed intelligence report on the TLP - something that the ISI has refused to supply. The report does not read as intended for the court to decide legal matters, but rather to appease the public.

The few details that have been provided - such as material support offered by the owners of Channel 92 as well as Sheikh Rashid, opens up a problematic aspect of this episode that needs to be properly investigated. A new report is expected, as is the response of the LEAs on the freshly issued arrest warrants - as Khadim Rizvi has refused to appear before the courts so far.