Quelling Dissent; a Pyrrhic Victory
Detention of political activists in the hands of state machinery for having a difference of opinion is not a new phenomenon. States have been relying on Weber’s theory of the state’s monopoly over use of force. This principle, in general, has emboldened states to use force to crush dissents. Essentially, force is used by a legitimate authority to protect its citizens from any danger; may it stem from within or outside the state boundaries. Consequently, citizens feel secure under that particular authority and surrender their privileges in return for the security of their life, wealth and property. The famous theory of social contract premises on the same principle. Accordingly, state or a particular authority averts any danger facing the citizens. And thus, the fight against the state of nature is neutralized by the state mechanism. As a result, citizens feel contend and live a prosperous life; public good, in the face of such a transaction, become a norm of the day. Unfortunately, in the contemporary era, the modern state system has been using force to tame its own citizens to keep their reins in its own hands. The utilization of this theory by state to expand its tentacles and sway of influence has endangered the rights promised in Hobbes’ social contract. This, in return, is inculcating sense of deprivation among the citizens and brewing discontent in the public. In many places, among the civilized nations, the notion of the state’s monopoly over force is being challenged and has resulted in rebellions. The nationals and states have been daggers drawn in some cases and such a chaotic environment has shut the doors of prosperity and spread uncertainty in human communities.
Pakistan is no exception, and in a recent episode, in Gilgit-Baltistan(GB), the authorities have detained a political activist, Yawar Abbas, under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public order, accusing him of threatening the public peace and order and instigating the public against government institutions. The notification rolled out by the District Magistrate Nagar reads that he has been wittingly trying to sabotage the peace process through his social media accounts, thus endangering public order. But it is out of question that the said authority did not quote any incident where he appeared to be provoking sentiments of people against any particular government institution. It is important to mention that Yawar Abbas has already been placed by the authorities in schedule IV, a clause of ATA which includes a person among the proscribed personals. Importantly, by no definition the political activist falls under this draconian law nor can he be referred to as a proscribed person. Unfortunately, there are more than hundreds of political activists who have been placed under schedule IV of ATA in GB. This law has added to the miseries of many educated people and few have contested their inclusion, in the list, in the courts of law, but in vain. The spree of suppression of political activists in a sensitive region has severe repercussions that is by no means in favor of the country and can dent its image at international level, let alone alienation of locals within the region.
Differences of opinion and voicing of concerns by individuals against state institutions must be celebrated for its citizens have reached the highest level of political consciousness. Democratic societies always promote dialogue and accept criticism to mend their gray areas, freedom of expression is part and parcel of such communities. Pakistan, being a democratic state, has enacted Article 19 in the constitution of 1973 to ensure freedom of expression. The government machinery, therefore, before taking any measure of crackdown must take into account the democratic and constitutional compulsions. They must bear in mind that they, too, drive their authority from the same constitution, the supreme document of the country. If they fail to comply with the constitution, the masses may tear it apart and the region will turn into a jungle, and the law of the jungle cannot pervade in civilized societies.
The state needs to revisit its repressive policies and must bear in mind that this is not mainstream Pakistan but a unit of a disputed area. This may trigger a mass protest leading to resounding voices of separation as in Indian Occupied Kashmir. Pakistan is in no way soothing the injured people but adding salt to the injuries of the constitutionally deprived people of GB. Both Islamabad and Rawalpindi should realize to the core that the people have unconditionally acceded to Pakistan and they have been waiting to get their rewards in return for the love they expressed to the nascent Pakistan. Instead of returning love in the same coin, the state is using brute force to intimidate dissents at large. Such tactics would cost a Pyrrhic victory for Pakistan and may lead to civil unrest in the region. The consequent void may be filled by an evil eye. Geographical significance has turned GB into a golden bird and, at the same time, the region has been made vulnerable; many global and regional powers have eyes upon the region. A large scale protest leading to civil conflict may invite powerful players as uninvited guests under the pretext of Human Rights violations and peaceful settlement. The authorities concerned, particularly the establishment, should not tread on the path of invaders but a custodian and deal with the dissenting voice in a peaceful manner. Suppression of dissenting activists may bring a Pyrrhic victory but not a convincing victory.
