Asif Zaheer Gondal<\/p>\n
The discourse surrounding the November 26 episode is predominantly anchored in a political narrative, overlooking crucial dimensions of social and legal analysis.
\nPolitical parties certainly have the right to protest as a means of expressing dissent and promoting their agendas. However, this right carries an important responsibility: it must be exercised in a manner that respects the rights of all citizens and must not exceed the established legal limitations.
\nWhen political parties engage in protest, they must ensure their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Failure to do so can lead to the marginalization of ordinary citizens, undermining the democratic values these parties claim to champion.
\nThe principle of lawful assembly and protest rests on the understanding that such actions should not disrupt public order or the rights of fellow community members. As political activities take shape, they must operate within the boundaries set by legal frameworks, ensuring that the pursuit of political goals does not jeopardize public tranquillity or individual freedoms.
\nWhen PTI announced a protest on November 26, it caused significant concern among traders in the capital. This reaction is completely understandable. The traders face high rental costs for their shops, and if their business activities are disrupted due to political protests, they have every right to voice their objections. The current economic situation is challenging, and if a political party frequently holds rallies at D-Chowk in the Blue Area, which is the capital\u2019s economic hub, it is only natural for traders to feel frustrated.
\nThe traders moved to the Islamabad High Court. (What else is a citizen supposed to do, by the way?) The court instructed the district administration not to allow the PTI protest in Islamabad. The court directed further that the PTI apply to the Deputy Commissioner seven days in advance for the protest. The protest can be held after getting permission.
\nThe permission was never actually denied. A compromise was suggested, along with an alternate venue offered to the PTI, to protect the rights of citizens, traders, and the PTI simultaneously. So that while exercising its rights, no party can deny the same rights to others.
\nThe PTI rejected the proposed venue, although some leaders within the PTI acknowledged that Imran Khan had agreed to the alternative location. However, certain individuals in charge at that time refused to accept this and chose instead to proceed to D Choke.
\nThis action violated the parameters established by the high court. It was essentially a contempt of court. It was illegal and illogical, and it disrupted the order and peace in the city. The state must protect the rights of every segment of society; citizens and traders cannot be held hostage to the whims of any political party.
\nThe administration imposed Section 144 in the city for two months. Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) grants the district administration the authority to issue orders in the public interest, which may impose a ban on specific activities for a designated period. This ban is enforced by the police, who file cases under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code for any violations.
\nPTI violated the High Court order and the restrictions under Section 144. Consequently, the government had to take action.
\nThe post-truth narrative can portray the incident as desired, but the undeniable truth is that PTI\u2019s insistence on going to D-Chowk was a complete disregard for the law and the High Court order.
\nPolitics is the art of making impossible things possible. It is not about confining everyone to a narrow path. Political parties have the right to protest, but this right should not be seen as a step towards anarchy. Everything has its limits, both social and legal.
\nPolitics ought to demonstrate a level of maturity that encompasses respect for the rights of all citizens while simultaneously advocating for its own. The political sphere must uphold the rule of law, ensuring compliance before seeking redress or remedies through the legal system.The right to protest must be exercised in a manner that respects the rights of all citizens and must not exceed the established legal limitations.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance columnist.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Asif Zaheer Gondal The discourse surrounding the November 26 episode is predominantly anchored in a political narrative, overlooking crucial dimensions of social and legal analysis. Political parties certainly have the right to protest as a means of expressing dissent and promoting their agendas. However, this right carries an important responsibility: it must be exercised in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13556],"class_list":{"0":"post-454668","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-asif-zaheer-gondal"},"yoast_head":"\n