Peaceful protest is the right of a political party, but not the right to engage in thuggery or incite chaos.

Amir Muhammad Khan

Amid the economic and political phase Pakistan is currently traversing, the country is in greater need of peace, stability, and economic continuity than of street clashes, institutional confrontations, and political tension. The public is already grappling with issues regarding inflation, employment, and the costs of electricity, fuel, and daily necessities. In such a climate, if political parties disrupt daily life in the name of protest—blocking highways, turning government institutions into battlegrounds for political strife, and pitting provincial governments against one another—the resulting damage affects not just the government or the opposition, but the entire nation. As a political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf holds the constitutional right to protest and dissent against the government; however, the governing principle for every political party is that protests must remain within the bounds of the law and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens. Junaid Akbar, a leader of this party, stated, “We will come to Islamabad on September 27; bodies will fall, but we will not turn back.” Due to his lack of knowledge, he even likened this march on Islamabad to Mahmud of Ghazni’s destruction of the Somnath Temple—ignoring the historical fact that Mahmud had actually looted the temple’s treasury. He made this inflammatory speech while addressing his workers. There is no need to dwell here on the educational level of our innocent public; they simply view Mahmud of Ghazni as a soldier of Islam. Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court has ruled in a recent detailed verdict that no political party has the legal right to disrupt citizens’ movement by occupying public roads, highways, interchanges, or government buildings. The court also issued directives to provincial governments regarding the use of state machinery for protests. When has the PTI ever demonstrated a commitment to law and order or peaceful protest? The events of May 9, 2023, and November 24, 2024, remain dark stains on Pakistan’s democratic history. Protest is not a crime in a democracy; indeed, dissent against government policies is a hallmark of democracy, and the opposition’s role is precisely to criticize and hold the government accountable. However, there is a clear line between protest and anarchy. When political activity leads to blocked roads, halted businesses, damage to public and private property, confrontations between police and protesters, or confines ordinary citizens to their homes and workplaces for hours, the issue ceases to be merely political; it becomes an act of thuggery that makes life miserable for the public. What, for instance, can be said of attempts to forcibly enter a police van to deliver a speech, or a Chief Minister from one province forcibly entering a session of the Punjab Assembly and scuffling with security personnel? Wouldn’t this be termed thuggery? These people only celebrate—dancing in jubilation—when court verdicts go their way; if a ruling doesn’t favor them according to the law, their social media machinery immediately unleashes a barrage of vitriol. In November 2024, the Islamabad Police reported that PTI’s protest activities between July and November of that year cost the national exchequer over one billion rupees, in addition to causing damage to public and private property. According to the police, one officer lost his life, and 42 others were injured. Is this political protest, or a means to damage the national economy? A national economy thrives on confidence. Investors assess the continuity of business operations, the security of roads and ports, the reliability of internet and communication systems, and the frequency with which political crises disrupt daily life. Estimates suggested a potential daily economic loss of approximately 120 billion rupees due to anticipated protests and sit-ins. While this figure represents a government estimate rather than a definitively proven loss, it highlights the government’s concern regarding the potential impact of protests on economic activity. Major losses cannot be rectified overnight; beyond the aforementioned economic damage caused by business closures, what becomes of street vendors, vegetable sellers, rickshaw and taxi drivers, and daily wage earners? Governments have never been—nor will they ever be—toppled by protests; it is the common man and his children who suffer. Neither the government nor the opposition—which covets power—ever truly cares about their plight. In our country, regardless of which party is in the opposition, the moment it loses power, it immediately resorts to protest politics and embarks on an agenda of total destruction. Patriotism often becomes a thing of the past the moment power is attained. According to the Finance Minister, the government is focusing on boosting exports in the current fiscal year, yet political uncertainty threatens to undermine this effort. The Information Minister has also warned that road blockades and political tensions could harm exports and business activities. Pakistan currently needs to increase exports, attract investment, expand the IT sector, boost remittances, and create employment opportunities. In such a climate, any activity that disrupts business continuity ultimately impacts the common man. Prioritizing the release of individuals involved in serious crimes over the national economy is hardly the mark of a patriot. In one province, the qualification for becoming Chief Minister is measured by one’s ability to incite chaos; to make matters worse, a peculiar precedent is being set where a leader refuses to attend crucial federal meetings—such as those concerning national security—opting instead to create a ruckus from the sidelines. Protecting the lives and property of the public and strengthening the economy are the government’s duties, necessitating disciplinary action against those responsible—including the innocent people whom these leaders have left exposed in the streets…They commit the act and flee—that is their track record; ultimately, it is the ordinary worker—already crushed by inflation and unemployment—who pays the price, left with no one to look after their plight. Whatever stern action the Ministry of Interior takes will be in the country’s best interest. They are so indifferent to the public’s suffering that they do not even attend the funeral prayers for the martyrs—whether from the security forces or the general public; this attitude stems from their leader, whose own record shows he has never attended a single funeral prayer.