Uneasy questions
Despite all the noise about a crack down on unauthorised weapons, the chosen people sill move around escorted by armed followers. Not long ago a young man was shot dead in Lahore by one of the guards of a celebrity’s son for no other reason than overtaking the cavalcade. With the country highly sensitive about these matters in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Peshawar, the police too is becoming somewhat careful. It was therefore understandable on the part of the Islamabad police to take into custody the local leader of ASWJ and his bodyguards for carrying arms. Such is the threat of the terrorists that after discovering the identity of the arrested persons the officer concerned let them go with a lighter charge. The prime minister, who is keen to make anyone shirking his duties an example for others, immediately ordered the suspension of SSP Islamabad and another officer for showing leniency to the leader. With the police maintaining that the accused were not displaying their weapons when intercepted, they could therefore not be booked on that charge, it seems to be a case of shoot first, ask question later for no other reason than grandstanding.
What one fails to understand is why the chief cleric of Lal Masjid has not been arrested by police a week after his arrest warrants were issued. If the fault lies with the police officers for not pursuing the case in accordance with law, why no action was taken against them? The man continues to cock a snook at the state by maintaining that he would neither apply for bail nor offer arrest. This is yet another example of cherry-picking, which makes government claims of acting even-handedly look like a hoax. The fight against terrorism has suffered a lot from this approach. What is more it has raised questions about the genuineness of the government’s claims. That continuation of the dual approach at a time when everyone expects the establishment to act with firmness raises uneasy questions
