For Pakistan, hosting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Council of Foreign Ministers Meeting is indeed an honour, but in the current charged political, security, and law and order situation, it presents an immense challenge.
In many countries, especially established democracies, protests during high-profile regional and international meetings are considered a normal and routine affair. A small contingent of police is usually deployed to ensure the safety of protesters, pedestrians, motorists, and the surrounding neighbourhood. Protesters are regarded as responsible citizens, and are not in any way branded as terrorists, criminals, or lawbreakers.
This stands in stark contrast to our current trend of labelling all protesters— whether peaceful or otherwise, including women, youth, and children— as terrorists, anarchists, and violators of the law and order.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, government leadership, whether political or from law enforcement agencies, have started labelling protesters as anarchists and vowed to prevent them from reaching their intended venues as if they are an invading enemy force. It is as though they are launching an attack on the federal capital or any city in Punjab, prompting the entire security apparatus to be put on high alert. The authorities are authorized to use the full force of their arsenal to stop, defeat, arrest, or, if necessary, injure the protesters.
This mindset is both alarming and dangerous. We know that Balochistan is on a perilous path. Terrorists and separatists in the region do not allow the entry of citizens from other provinces, and whenever they get the opportunity, they stop buses, check commuters’ ID cards, and kill those belonging to other provinces. They also attack the residences of people from other provinces living in Balochistan and murder them mercilessly.
It poses a significant challenge to our national competence and political acumen to come together, identify the core issues, and find political solutions against using force to quell dissent, counter insurgency, or separatism. While such measures may temporarily suppress the situation on the surface, the underlying flames of perceived injustice, marginalization, and tyranny continue to simmer and eventually erupt with greater intensity once the pressure is lifted.
We have seen a similar example in Afghanistan, where both the USSR and the USA, despite their might, were unable to subjugate the Afghan people and had to withdraw in total disgrace. We have also witnessed the consequences of dissent and injustice in Bangladesh, where the tyranny and might of the government could not stop the protestors, ultimately leading to the government’s disgraceful exit.
Failure to do so will only push the country deeper into chaos and unrest. If this happens, the government, being in power, will bear the full responsibility for the consequences. Now is the time for the government to show wisdom and compassion, to listen to its people, and to take decisive steps toward healing the divisions that threaten the nation’s stability. Ignoring these voices will only lead to greater turmoil, and the cost of inaction will be felt by all.
We are now confronting a similar scenario between KP province and the Federal Capital, as well as Punjab. The Chief Minister of Punjab, the spokesperson for the Punjab government, and the Federal Interior minister have labelled protesters originating from KP— whether peaceful or not— anarchists. They have vowed to prevent citizens from KP entering Punjab or the Federal Capital, even though these citizens are exercising their fundamental right to move freely across the country without any restrictions, coercion, or intimidation. Additionally, they are exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
This background raises two important questions. Does the federal government or the Punjab government have the right, power, or constitutional backing to label all protesters from a legitimate political party originating from KP anarchists?
Peaceful protests are legitimate democratic expressions, and conflating them with criminal or terrorist activities erodes these rights, undermining the rule of law and democratic norms. Additionally, international human rights obligations emphasize the need to protect peaceful assembly, not suppress it through force or fear. Such actions set a dangerous precedent, stifle political discourse, and undermine public trust in institutions.
For example, during the Yellow Vest protests in France, while there were incidents of violence, the French government did not label the entire movement anarchistic or terroristic. Instead, law enforcement focused on managing the crowds and minimizing disruptions, while allowing people to exercise their right to protest. Similarly, in the USA, movements such as Black Lives Matter have seen large-scale demonstrations across the country. While some acts of violence occurred, the movement as a whole was not branded as terrorism; rather, law enforcement worked to ensure that peaceful protests could take place. These examples illustrate how established democracies maintain a balance between preserving public order and protecting the constitutional rights of their citizens, ensuring that dissent is respected as an essential part of democratic engagement rather than criminalized.
The second important question is: In Balochistan, where severe waves of high-intensity insurgency have led insurgents to use violent means to stop the movement of citizens from other provinces— what would happen if the Punjab or Federal government similarly restricted the movement of citizens from KP? If the people and government of KP respond in kind by restricting the entry of citizens from the Federal Capital and Punjab into KP, how would this impact the Federation of Pakistan?
Though the possibility of the KP government resorting to such an extreme step is remote, if it does, it would cause immense harm to the country. Pakistan, as a federation, relies on the free movement of citizens across its provinces. Restricting movement between KP and Punjab would create divisions, foster provincialism, and damage the national fabric. It would signal a breakdown in the unity of the federation, where provincial interests are prioritized over national cohesion. Such actions could encourage other provinces to follow suit, further weakening the sense of collective identity as Pakistanis and promoting separatist sentiments in different regions.
If the government truly seeks to defuse the protests, it has no option but to engage the protest leaders in sincere, meaningful dialogue and negotiation. The government must genuinely address their concerns and, most importantly, resolve the underlying issues.
Failure to do so will only push the country deeper into chaos and unrest. If this happens, the government, being in power, will bear the full responsibility for the consequences. Now is the time for the government to show wisdom and compassion, to listen to its people, and to take decisive steps toward healing the divisions that threaten the nation’s stability. Ignoring these voices will only lead to greater turmoil, and the cost of inaction will be felt by all.
