In Islamabad, if you are to go from the Blue Area to the Red Zone which houses among other high offices the Main Secretariat, Parliament House and Supreme Court you should be prepared for body search by the vigilantes of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT). They won't let you walk through their sit-ins unless you allow them to frisk your baggage for 'subversive material'; and if you're in police uniform your visit can be nothing but a terrible ordeal. The so-called writ of state ends wherefrom the writ of the sit-ins begins. But now going through the sit-ins is no more as daunting an exercise as it was early this month when even entry to the Main Secretariat was controlled by protesters. Of course, given that hostile weather and fatigue have taken some toll on the numerical strength of squatters, space under their writ is also shrinking, but to hope and wish they wrap up anytime soon would be pretty darn unrealistic. On the face of it, Nawaz Sharif is not going to resign under the pressure of these sit-ins that, according to Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri, will last as long he persists in his no-resign mode.
As the case proceeds in the apex court, the counsel representing both sides are expected to present their positions, but beyond the precincts of the Supreme Court the ongoing sit-ins are a matter of high-pitched argument in the court of the people. They have paralysed the nation's capital. Not only have these sit-ins adversely affected economic activity, the two protests have also restricted the free movement of residents. These are more of forced lockdowns and shutter-downs than a political activity. And above all, they have painted the law and order enforcement agencies into a corner. A sit-in, commonly called 'dharna' in the subcontinental vernacular, is generally perceived as a peaceful protest against social injustice caused by the government of the day to win over sympathy. It is essentially a non-violent expression of no-confidence against a particular plan or an action of government. The Article 16 ordains that a sit-in actuated as a Fundamental Right is 'to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order'. The answer to question whether or not these sit-ins of PTI and PAT have played out within the parameters of Article 16, will be in a big 'no'. Maybe, the government and its allies, old and new in terms of joint defence of parliament, have some undisclosed information that has restrained them from taking the unlawful sit-ins head-on. But until that information is made public and that information sounds credible it would be difficult not to charge the government with rank failure in securing the country's capital against the 'take-over' in the garb of peaceful sit-ins. The sit-in parties insist that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case under Article 184(3); but the other side insists that their petitions are maintainable on the principle of 'political justice'. Their counsel plausibly argues that loyalty to the state is the basic duty of every citizen and obedience to the constitution and law is an inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being in Pakistan. Indeed these are finer points of law and may require a deeper insight to arrive at a decision. Insofar as the plight of ordinary mortals is concerned, they suffer the hurt these sit-ins cause and they hope that a Supreme Court decision will mean the end of hardship.