There is a general opinion in Pakistan that if you do not adopt a hard-line style of resistance against the government system in accepting your political, social, economic and legal demands, your problems will not be solved. Because our system of governance listens to the people only when you take the situation to a dead end or bring the situation to a point where the ruling class has no option but to talk to you or accept your demands. Because the system of governance is not in our nature to bring opponents together and talk to each other, to find a political and democratic way to solve problems, and to adopt a policy of avoiding the use of force.
This is the reason why people or political parties or other forces prefer to take a path in favor of their demands that should not be taken in principle. Because in this way, violent paths emerge, which are apparently not good political options in the state and governance system.
Similarly, one of our tendencies has become that we try to find internal and external conspiratorial aspects in this type of political and social resistance, and the ruling class comes to the fore in this. Because we see criticism of the ruling system as a form of political hostility and believe that even ordinary people who jump into the political arena to speak out for their political, social, economic and legal rights are part of some conspiracy game or are taken as rebellion against the system.
This is the reason why we see two types of statements in the form of political protests: first, these forces are part of a conspiracy against the state and the system of governance, and second, we are trying to fight for our rights on the basis of protest, which the government is not ready to recognize. These are the two contradictory thoughts that create conflict within the system and at the same time give rise to political rebellions against each other.
We also saw this aspect in the recent protest movement in Azad Kashmir. Then, the government sitting with the committee of the same protest movement, holding talks, accepting the demands in writing and ending the movement on the basis of various promises - how was this process not adopted by the ruling classes from the very beginning and why was this movement given the opportunity to spread more than necessary? This needs to be thought about very seriously.
Basically, we should seek solutions to political and other issues in a peaceful and democratic context, and this should be part of the priorities of the protesting forces, including the government. Because if people peacefully resist within the framework of the political and legal level, the government system should recognize this political right of theirs. Similarly, the protesting parties also have a responsibility not to take the situation to a point where violence can arise. This responsibility does not belong to any one party, but to all parties, and both should take responsibility for the deterioration of the situation.
The government's behavior is also that when they see that the path of political protest has intensified, then the government first takes the path of negotiations to save itself and also makes verbal or written agreements with them to end the protest. But as soon as the situation changes, by deviating from the promises made, the ruling class creates more problems for itself in the future and people no longer trust the government's promises. This is the reason why during the politics of protest, there is talk of accepting the demands and it is believed that what was accepted today is the truth, but all are false claims.
The government should understand one thing: people are unhappy with the governance system in the country and all their problems, especially economic ones, are quite severe. People are unhappy that the governance system is not ready to show any seriousness towards their problems and concerns, which not only creates anger among the people, but also shows extremist tendencies against the governance, which is not the right thing to do.
Especially in those areas of the country that are backward or suffer from political, economic and administrative deprivations, where the problems of the weaker sections are not resolved, we see more politics of reaction. This question should also be important in the governance system as to how people come to the streets or take the path of protest based on their local problems. All this is possible only when the governance system closes its doors to the people and, based on the use of force against those who come out to protest, we believe that we have to control the situation.
The politics of deprivation is increasing in the country. Rather, these issues are no longer limited to small or backward areas or villages, but now the problems of Pakistan's big cities or the governance system have deteriorated to such an extent that no clear and transparent roadmap for correcting the situation is visible.
Now it remains to be seen whether the government will be able to seriously implement all these issues after the successful written negotiations between the government and the Joint Action Committee in Azad Kashmir or will this process itself become a means of political evasion based on past strategies. It is necessary to avoid such violent policies in the future and not take the situation to a point where nothing is left but violence and the use of force.
Today's modern states and a better and more transparent system of governance are linked to the political and economic survival of states. But instead of accepting our shortcomings and failures, we want to move forward with great political boldness by building on the same system that is pushing us towards further failures. But are we ready to move out of the strategies in our current governance? This should be considered.
Post a Comment