Can Discrimination Ever Result In Unity?

“Any action against Asif Zardari would instigate a war”, “Arrest of Dr. Asim is an invasion of Sindh”, “We would not tolerate any charge of terrorism on us!” 

This was how Pakistan people`s party reacted to the arrest of its prominent member Dr. Asim Hussain by the Rangers. Interestingly, neither the ISPR showed its reaction nor did any other political party submit a resolution in any in provincial assemblies for condemning these remarks, rather threats.

The silence over the PPP`s extremely controversial statements is quite strange in the scenario where MQM`s founder Altaf Hussain was bashed and demanded to be tried under Article 6 (High treason) just because he had criticized Rangers and Army generals over the indiscriminate arrests, enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings of dozens of MQM workers. Not only over a hundred (100) cases were registered against him, but also an unannounced ban was put on his live as well as recorded speeches and interviews through the Pakistani media.  

Question is, when MQM`s founder can be considered as an anti-state element merely for criticizing the military establishment, why to exempt PPP leaders even over the threat of initiating a war? Is that not a double standard? 

Not only the PPP`s leaders, there is a long list of the politicians from different political and religious parties who used abusive language against the Pakistan military establishment and its officials, yet, no actions were taken like the ones against MQM`s leaders. MQM`s critics including politician and media-men try to justify all this arguing that Altaf Hussain`s speech was an incitement of violence. Factually speaking, Altaf Hussain bashed Rangers and the military establishment over victimizing MQM`s leaders and workers. 

Furthermore, after his address, more MQM`s workers were arrested, more dead bodies he received and the criticized Rangers conducted one more raid at “90” in addition to their “routine patrolling” (exclusively of MQM`s headquarter), yet not a single act of resistance, retaliation or any other kind of violence took place against them.
Then, how can Altaf Hussain`s objected speech be termed as an incitement of violence? 

In contrast to this, MQM`s workers and voters (mainly Urdu speaking) several times faced not only the hateful speeches, derogatory remarks and open threats from the non-Urdu speaking racist leaders, but also became the victims of the consequent ethnic-cleansing. However neither the culprits were accused of having incited violence nor a single FIR (case) registered against them over the subsequent massacres due to their racism.

It is on record that PTI`s chairman Imran Khan,  during his sit-in in Islamabad, consistently used foul language against the elected Prime Minister, Chief Justice of Supreme Court as well as the Parliament.  

He provoked people to go for civil disobedience and not to pay their utility bills. Similarly, he also asked people to send their remittances from overseas through illegal ways in order to make the Nawaz Sharif`s government suffer.

The decision to cross the barricades and enter the prohibited area (the Red Zone) also came from the PTI`s chairman. But, despite so much incitement to rebellion in the country, he kept on roaming freely.  

Keeping in view the arrest of MQM`s Qamar Mansoor & Kaif-ul-Warah under the charge of abetting (i.e., making arrangements of Altaf Hussain`s speech, listening to and clapping over it), should more strict steps not have been taken against PTI leaders and the people who listened to, clapped and, more importantly, acted upon the speeches by beating up the policemen, entering the Red Zone and even taking over the PTV (Pakistan Television) building? 

But, did such a thing happen? Further, like in the Altaf Hussain`s case, did the PEMRA direct the Pakistani news channels to stop coverage of the rabble-rousing addresses being made by Imran Khan? Not at all! 

During the 126 days of PTI-staged sit-in, the time came when the Interior Ministry thought of using police force to disperse the protesters, but the Army Chief General Raheel Sharif immediately messaged the Federal government not to use force and to resolve the matter politically through talks.

It is also worth noticing that when the Army moved in after the attack at state-run television (PTV), the incited protesters were still inside the building. 

However, instead of arresting and taking to an unknown location by blindfolding them just like the MQM workers and leaders, the army troops politely requested the perpetrators to leave the building announcing, “Army has come in, please leave the building”  

If all the actions still being taken against Altaf Hussain and MQM`s other leaders not aimed to victimize them and were the legal and constitution requirements, then why not to treat Imran Khan and his colleagues the same way? 

On top of all, the Army`s pressuring an elected government not to use force against the perpetrators inciting public to civil disobedience and also itself deliberately letting the attackers of a state institution (PTV) escape, not an obvious act of aiding and abetting? 
All these facts clearly indicate that in Pakistan the prevailing laws and the state machinery are used against anyone not on the grounds of the acts committed, but on the basis of personal, political and ethnic rivalries of the ruling elites. 

Once again, like in the 90`s, MQM and its voters are on the target of the civil and military establishments merely owing to their ethnic and political enmity with them. The on-going victimization is adding to the already prevailing sense of isolation and deprivation in the Urdu speaking (Muhajir) community that is not a good sign for the unity in the country.