- Playing the devil’s advocate
How could a gang of protestors be allowed to not only get away with paralysing the country for three weeks, but also end up making the elected government blink first and retreat, making an utter laughing stock of itself in the process? Joining in this politically correct outrage is all the rage these days, but I will resist the temptation. As far as I am concerned, there’s hardly anything to be shocked, astonished, or even puzzled about in the happenings of the last month or so. Except perhaps this: Why did Ayesha Gulalai, the latest Liberal heroine, choose not to come good on her promise to get the said mob to vacate the Faizabad Interchange?
The question whether the writ of the government can be overrun by a two-thousand-strong mob reminds me of the following story: Two men are having a stimulating conversation on theology. One asks: ‘Do you believe in infant baptism?’ ‘Believe in it?’ The other replies, ‘Hell, I’ve seen it happen.’ If further illumination is required, perhaps we could turn to Nawaz Sharif, the last standing pillar of democracy as far as liberals are concerned, to shed some light on the issue. His views on the entitlement of the mob to overrule judges of the Supreme Court are quite enlightening.
The general liberal outrage triggers other questions, mostly rhetorical, however, that I present alongside the particular liberal concern.
The liberals haven’t been particularly impressed by the way the protestors used pressure tactics to put the government on the back foot. Perhaps they wanted the protestors to light some candles and arrange some nice vigils, where they couldn’t agitate anybody, get tired and go home. Or do they want to say that although all agitational movements are equal, some are more equal than others?
Some liberals are lamenting the demise of Jinnah’s Pakistan, while others that of democracy in the country. The question is, can something cease to be, if it doesn’t exist in the first place?
For we’ve had ‘good’ long marches, lock-downs, sit-ins, and the like; have we not? The famous judges’ restoration movement employed similar pressure tactics, did it not? Are all agitational politics wrong then? Or are there cases where they are justified and even recommended? Is it cause-dependent? And if so, who gets to decide whether a cause justifies agitation? Was the present sit-in particularly unacceptable because it was led and participated in by the religious folk?
The liberals also objected to the way the agreement was signed between the government and the protestors, especially the signature of a general as guarantor. Their reasoning here couldn’t be sounder: it’s detrimental to civilian supremacy. However, here one can’t help wonder whether that famous 2009 phone call and events surrounding it (which culminated in the restoration of judges) was similarly bad for civilian supremacy – if it was, it remains an extremely jealously guarded national secret. Or are these things good or bad depending on whether they help or trouble the Punjabi elite by any chance?
Some liberals are lamenting the demise of Jinnah’s Pakistan, while others that of democracy in the country. The question is, can something cease to be, if it doesn’t exist in the first place? Some Liberals have shown grave concern over the loss of stature suffered by the parliament as a result of capitulation of the government; and we must thank them profusely, for it’s extremely pleasant to be occasionally reminded that we have a parliament in the country.
‘Does Islam allow blocking of roads?’ is another pressing concern. As if Islam is consulted in everything else, not to mention the fact that the liberals otherwise want to keep religion out of politics. But it’s an interesting train of thought regardless. Does Islam allow blocking of roads and entire areas for hearings of criminal court cases of members of the ‘ruling family’? Does Islam allow state and provincial ministers to defend one family’s private wealth for months on end with single-minded focus? Does Islam allow ‘VIP routes’ for ‘democrats’? Does even democracy allow these things?
Who foots the bill for these dharnas is another serious liberal concern. What if the protestors subscribe to Nawaz Sharif’s ‘my income and expenditure is none of your business’ school of thought? As for ‘How much tax do these clerics pay?’ surely there can be more conducive environments for collecting taxes than a situation where the country’s sitting finance minister, facing corruption cases of his own, has jumped bail and fled abroad?
Thankfully the outrage is not without some comic relief. Some liberals, for example, are angrily asking if their demands would similarly be accepted if they assembled two thousand people on some crossroads. As if they could ever assemble twenty liberals willing to face the elements, tear gassing and worse, let alone two thousand! Full marks for optimism, nevertheless.
The word count reminds me that here I must stop being the devil’s advocate. Lamenting the pathetic capitulation of the government, criticising the role of hidden forces and extremist clerics undoubtedly make for great pastimes. There’s another question, however: Why is it that any upstart who challenges the supposed ‘writ’ of the government manages to get sympathies from such a wide section of the population, even if very few people openly admit it? Will we ever find it in ourselves to address this question earnestly?