This year, as in every year, December 10 marked the celebration of "Human Rights Day" around the globe, including in Pakistan. Ironically, it is often the very governments and state institutions that advocate for this day that engage in daily violations of human rights. The historical narrative of this country begins officially in 1947, yet textbooks frequently trace it back to 712. This suggests a deep-rooted misrepresentation in our understanding of the country’s history from the very start. Given this context, it is hardly surprising that the country's historical narrative is riddled with inaccuracies, prompting questions about the potential for genuine improvement. Daily human rights violations reflect the serious challenges faced by the populace. Furthermore, it is disheartening to note that even political parties claiming to represent the people appear ensnared in an ongoing power struggle, primarily focused on safeguarding their own interests and those of their groups.
The distinct landscape of Pakistani politics is quite pronounced. This country operated without a constitution from its creation in 1947 until the introduction of its first constitution in 1956. During this period, governments changed with alarming frequency, revealing that many individuals in significant governmental positions lacked a solid understanding of political fundamentals, which hindered their ability to govern effectively. Rather than empowering the country’s experienced political leaders, authority was granted to figures like General Ayub Khan, who undermined the constitution of 1956. In 1970, following a fair and transparent election, the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujib, achieved a decisive victory. However, rather than transferring power to this legitimate authority, the government attempted to marginalise it, resulting in the tragic partition of the country. It is disheartening to observe that lessons from this division were not heeded, as the democratically elected government of Balochistan was also dismissed.
The regime of General Zia-ul-Haq represented a period during which no progressive political leader or activist was spared; non-Muslims and women were particularly vulnerable, as a law of the jungle prevailed across Pakistan. This troubling trend persisted through the Musharraf era, which witnessed the signing of agreements such as the Charter of Democracy in 2006. This accord sought to ensure that political parties would not support any non-democratic forces, either directly or indirectly. However, in practice, the reality turned out to be quite the opposite.
Those who once condemned the "Khalai Makhlooq" while on the PDM platform, advocating for the demand to "respect the vote," now find themselves in power with the very support of these same entities
In the current political landscape of Pakistan, there is a significant absence of unity and genuine commitment to the welfare of the populace. Each political party appears ensnared in an endless cycle of vying for the approval of the military establishment, often at the expense of the people's needs. A notable example can be traced back to 2014, when influential factions supported Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri in their sit-ins aimed at ousting Nawaz Sharif from the prime ministership—a goal they ultimately achieved. Fast forward to 2018, and Imran Khan ascended to the role of Prime Minister, with non-democratic forces still exerting influence. This situation highlights a striking parallel to how these same forces are now treating Imran Khan himself.
Ironically, those who once condemned the "Khalai Makhlooq" while on the PDM platform, advocating for the demand to "respect the vote," now find themselves in power with the very support of these same entities. Conversely, the PTI leadership had reveled in the belief that they were the country’s sole rulers, assured of the unwavering backing from these so-called Khalai Makhlooq. They envisioned a one-party system reminiscent of China, with Imran Khan serving as a lifelong Prime Minister and the PTI firmly entrenched as the ruling party indefinitely. Today, however, the leadership of the PDM and PPP ironically takes on the role of "kings," even as the public acknowledges that their authority is precarious—no less susceptible than that of Khan’s reign.
Currently, we see the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) positioned against a coalition government supported by non-democratic forces. In this political landscape, Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman is actively involved, using the issue of Madrasas to strengthen his political position. It is important to note that Maulana previously opposed the 26th constitutional amendment when the government and its allies sought to gain his support. Now, he finds himself once again on the fringe. However, recognising the ineffectiveness of the Tehreek-e-Insaf's agenda, he has initiated independent negotiations with the government concerning Madrasas, although President Asif Ali Zardari currently presents a challenge in this matter. Meanwhile, the PTI opted to withdraw from Islamabad following the crackdown on November 26, a decision that has raised various questions. It is therefore essential for the public to critically assess these political parties to determine which genuinely advocate for their rights and which, under the pretense of representation, may mislead the people and the nation.