Aftermath of 'Dharnas' in Pakistan.

The culture of Sit-In (‘Dharnas’) in Pakistan for political gains has long history but in recent past, Pakistan witnessed a sit-in of a political party, lasted for 126 days, which was the longest in the political history of Pakistan. The objective of the sit-in was to force the government to open four national assembly constituencies for audit/recounting of the ballot papers claiming to be rigged by the winning political party. It left behind numerous questions vis-à-vis the writ of the State and the weaknesses within the system itself. 

This sit-in paralysed the government and took all organs of the State including the parliament and the judiciary literally as hostage. The prolonged sit-in obliged the PML/N government to seek the help of the political parties having representation in the National Assembly and the Senate to end the sit-in by showing their support to the government by standing by it in the larger interests of the democracy. The trend set by the government by seeking the mediation of the Army, although it blatantly denied of having made any request to the Army, invited the intervention of the Army in political disputes.

The recent sit-in of ‘Tehrik Labaik Ya Rasoolullah’ (TLYR) for over 20 days at Islamabad-Faizabad interchange was a recent manifestation of the weakness of the writ of the State. This sit-in was in fact in continuation of an earlier sit-in by another leader of the Tehrik in Blue Area of Islamabad in October 2017 for protesting against the constitutional amendments vis-à-vis Oath for the finality of the Prophet PBUH. It started building up by the passage of every day but the government did not take any step to contain the mob to gather and paralyse the civic life of the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The leaders/organisers of the Dharna demanded the resignation of the Federal Law Minister for his alleged involvement in the change of the oath and other allied constitutional amendments, which was resisted by the government as any resignation by any cabinet member under pressure would set a wrong precedent.

The demand for the resignation of the Law Minister kept on gaining momentum but the indifferent attitude of both the federal and provincial governments resulted in aggravation of the situation. The weakness of the writ of the government was clearly visible by the way it had dealt with the protesters and their demand. The unsuccessful and failed police operation by the joint police forces of both Islamabad and the Rawalpindi not only displayed the weakness of the commitment of the government but also negatively affected the moral of the forces. Ironically, when the police and the administration was in need of the political support, the Interior Minister disowned the operation by the police shifting the whole responsibility on the shoulders of the local administration. The police force, which was in need of support from its Ministers, felt abandoned and demoralised. In any security operation, the forces cannot become successful unless the government takes the ownership of the operation and stand behind the forces but here the Interior Minister surprisingly dis-owned the operation.

However, having failed in getting the sit-in issue resolved either through negotiation or through police operation, the government once again asked the Army to intervene and help it in reaching an agreement with the leaders of the protesters. Accordingly, an agreement between the ‘Government of Pakistan’ and TLYR was reached as a result of mediatory role played by the ISI. This agreement was signed amongst others by the Interior Minister and a representative of ISI. Through this agreement, the government knelt down and agreed for the resignation of its Law Minister, which clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the government and its writ. It also demonstrated the effectiveness of the military bureaucracy as compared to the civilian side of the government, as the leaders of the TLYR openly claimed that it was the army, which brought the resignation of the Law Minister to them as one of the demands for calling off their sit-in.  

This agreement put the whole government and a few hundred people at par where the government, representative of all its organs/institutions, was lower down to the level of few hundred people because the State could not exert its writ effectively due to having lack of any political support behind it. This agreement has also set a dangerous precedent where anyone having gathered a mob of few hundred people could be able to get its demands accepted by the State.

Now the question is as to why the government remained indifferent and insensitive to the agitation from the very start of the protest and left it to the point when the Islamabad High Court had to take notice of it directing the local administration to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. The federal government again remained indecisive as to whether or not take any effective steps to get the sit-in called off. It did hold negotiations with the leaders of the protestors without any resolution and consequently the government resorted to a half-hearted police operation, which was bound to fail.

It is equally important to understand as to why the government did not accept the demand of the protestors vis-à-vis resignation of the Law Minister on very first day of the protest but bent down to the demand of the protestors after 20 days when the protestors had already damaged the private and public property and had scuffled with the police causing injuries and casualties.

The said Dharna has exposed the weakness of the government, demoralised the police force and increased the effectiveness of the military in the resolution of the political and religious disputes in the future. It has given a clear message that the demands, legal or illegal, could be get accepted by the government through street power and intimidation. How this trend would shape the future political landscape, is really a matter of concern.