The successful public gathering by PAT at Minar-e-Pakistan,
not only surprised everyone, but also brought about a very burning question in
the town. None of the analysts was expecting such a huge participation of the general
people in the Jalsa. Obviously, Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri made a historic return to
the Pakistani politics.
Apparently, the affect of the PAT`s public convention
was similar to that of the PTI`s first big gathering in Lahore at the same
venue, however, the analysis and the views of the political analyst as well as
the anchorpersons were altogether different on them. After the Tehreek-e-Insaf`s
jalsa, the analysts were terming it as the beginning of public revolution
against the prevailing corrupt system of politics. In contrast to it, a larger public
gathering of PAT became a conspiracy and/or the result of a hidden agenda of
the secret forces?
Surprisingly, when there was held the PTI`s gathering in
Lahore last year, several important personalities including the anchorpersons ,
political analysts and the columnist were themselves present to “witness” the
glimpse of the people`s revolution. However, at the time of the emergence of
ten times bigger public gathering, these analysts were absent from the venue?
Why could the PAT`s well-organized public event not attract them? Why did the
so proactive and the far-sighting analysts and the anchorpersons not anticipate
the PAT`s historic success? Why did they lose the opportunity to cover a golden
and unforgettable moment??
It is also important to see that some anchorpersons seem
to be doubting Tahir-ul-Qadri`s come back into the Pakistani politics as the
game of the establishment. It is still on record that when Imran Khan faced
such allegations from his political rivals, he defended himself saying, “Agencies
can provide money, but they cannot bring people to the Jalsa in so many
numbers.” Many media persons accepted his explanation. Now, the question is,
should this logic not also apply to the Tahir-ul-Qadri`s recent gathering that
was definitely larger than the IK`s? Similarly, when Dr, Tahir–ul- Qadri demanded to hold the upcoming elections as per
the Constitution especially following the Articles 62 & 63 and, in the
other case, he would not accept the results, the critics took this stance as
undemocratic attitude and called it a conspiracy to postpone the elections. The
question arises, can demanding the elections to be held truly in respect of the
Pakistani Constitution anyhow be called undemocratic act?
Furthermore, can refusing to accept the elections as
they are not held following the Constitution ever be considered unlawful? If it
is really so, did IK too not announce to reject the elections results if the
same old parties won the elections? He also declared not to let the newly
elected parliamentarians enter the Assemblies by force. Not only that, he has
also announced to launch the campaign of civil disobedience for this purpose.
The question is, do IK`s such announcements deserve to be called democratic and
Constitutional attitude? When no, then why did the anchorpersons remain silent against
him and why are they targeting Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri now?
The critics are not very much happy with the Tahir-ul-Qadri`s
view about consulting the judiciary and the Army in the care taker set up. They
explained that the Constitution of Pakistan did not allow this type of role of
either of the Institutions in the Politics. Consequently, such an act would be
the violation of the Constitution. The question is, has there been no
involvement of these institutions in the Pakistani politics ever? A week ago,
Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri was interviewed by the famous anchorperson Mr. Najam Sethi in
the program “Apas Ki Baat”. During the interview, Najam Sethi himself accepted that
the Army had been intervening in the Politics. According to him, the recent example
was of the Nawaz Shareef`s long march to restore the deposed judges. He said
that the long march was not only originated, but also stopped it after the “consultation”
of the Army.
The question is, is the “consultation” of the army to
start and finish the long march permitted by the Constitution? Furthermore, does
the Constitution of Pakistan endorse any executive order (to restore the
deposed judges) issued due to the political pressure secretly backed through
the non constitutional act of the Army??? Would the critics of Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri
like to comment on this extremely obvious violation of the Constitution?? In
addition to this, when Imran Khan and Shebaz Shareef were naming the
democratically elected parliamentarians as “Daku”, “Chor” and “Luterey”, was
that in accordance with the Constitution? Is terming the Assemblies as the houses
of corrupt people, a democratic attitude? Would any anchorperson or analyst like
to quote the relevant clause of the Constitution that authorizes any politician
to do so?
Why are our well known anchorpersons, political
analysts and the columnists analyzing the PAT`s political success so partially?
Why are they setting a different criterion for Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri? Honestly
speaking, the standard should be the same no matter it is IK, Shareef Bros, Asif
Zardari or Tahir-ul-Qadri. But, if a different angle is used to analyze the
facts after the seeing the party or person under consideration, then it might
be prejudice, enmity or hatred, but not the independent or honest analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment