By Qamar Bashir
The recent unprecedented press conference held by the DG, ISPR two days ago has set
the tone and agenda for commemorating the first anniversary of the May 9 inferno. This
has prompted both federal and provincial governments, along with their respective
departments, to launch comprehensive paid advertisement campaigns across all forms of
media. Additionally, they have organized high-value events, rallies, walks, talks, and
candlelight vigils, utilizing various public relations and media management tools to
ensure extensive coverage aimed at conveying the message that the incident of May 9
"will not be forgiven or forgotten." knowing that it would dash all hopes of dialogue
between the government and the PTI, as well as between the PTI and the establishment.
The incident on 9th May, as described by former President Dr. Alvi during one of his
media interactions almost a year ago, was abhorrent and condemnable. He emphasized
that those found involved must be subjected to due process of law in a fair, transparent,
and judicious manner, based on concrete evidence and under a judicial dispensation
characterized by fairness and transparency. He reiterated his stand yet again in one of his
recent media interactions.
Interestingly, all parties involved in the incident, including the alleged victims (the army),
the alleged aggressors (the PTI), and all bystanders (the governments, opposition parties,
intelligence agencies, and civil society), have equally condemned the events of 9th May.
However, they diverge on various aspects, including the motives behind the incident, the
characters instigating, fomenting, and turning apparently a peaceful rally into an alleged
act of violence, the nature of evidences, interpretations of speeches made during the heat
of the moment, as well as visual and graphic recordings of the incident.
They also differ on the methods and procedures for adjudicating the incident. One intelligence agencies.
perspective asserts that the planners, abettors, and facilitators are already known with
concrete evidence, therefore, there is no need for further investigation or the
establishment of a commission. On the other hand, another perspective suggests that the
May 9th incident was masterminded by the sitting government to tarnish the reputation of
the PTI and provide a pretext to incarcerate its leaders, dismantle the PTI, and undermine
its public support.
The constitution and laws of Pakistan unequivocally forbid any attack, violence,
subversion or destruction directed at military installations, and prescribe severe
punishments for those involved in planning, abetting, or carrying out such actions.
Section 121 of the Pakistan Penal Code empowers the state to apprehend and punish
individuals who wage war, attempt to wage war, or abet the waging of war against the
government. Sections 302 and 324 provide for punishment for murder and attempted
murder, while Sections 427 and 511 enable the state to prevent mischief causing damage
and punish attempts to commit offenses punishable with imprisonment. Additionally, the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, the Pakistan Air Force Act
of 1953, and the Pakistan Navy Ordinance of 1961, furnish further tools for preventing
and controlling subversive activities against the state or the public.
The pressing question being raised across various sectors, including the army,
government, political parties like PTI, and civil society, pertains to the apparent failure of
the state to deliver justice in the May 9 incident, despite having full authority to do so.
Additionally, there's widespread inquiry into why the state has been unable to
substantiate the alleged involvement of PTI in a court of law, despite claiming to possess
incontrovertible evidence. Is it justifiable to solely attribute blame to the judiciary for its
inability to administer exemplary punishment to those responsible for violence against
the state, or does some responsibility also lie with the state for its failure to construct a
compelling case against the perpetrators?
Furthermore, there are queries regarding how certain political figures, initially
apprehended and purportedly implicated, were subsequently released and even rewarded
without undergoing due judicial process, while others who resisted compliance remain
incarcerated.
Another significant question revolves around the legality of the allegations leveled by the
DG-ISPR and the army chief against the judiciary for alleged incompetence and systemic
deficiencies in dispensing justice while there exists an established principle that victims
should not exert pressure or issue threats to the judiciary to secure convictions according
to their narrative. Instead, they are urged to build robust cases based on evidence and
legal reasoning, rather than mere dissatisfaction with court proceedings.
Questions have also been raised regarding why the state failed to prevent the attacks in
the first place, and what were the underlying reasons and constraints behind the
executive's failure at all levels to prevent rally participants from reaching, entering, and
damaging the Corps Commander's house without encountering resistance. This is
especially pertinent considering that the PTI chairman had warned the government of
severe public reaction if he was arrested, yet neither the state desisted from arresting him
nor put in place mechanisms to prevent the highly likely backlash by the public.
Additionally, inquiries have been made about the charges against army personnel,
including high-ranking officers, who were scrutinized and punished in relation to the
May 9 incident. Were the charges against them solely due to complacency, or were they
also suspected of being part of a larger conspiracy against the sitting army leadership?
Analysts and jurists are also raising questions about the legality of the politically tainted
press conferences by the DG ISPR and the legality of his offer to forgive the aggressors if
such forgiveness is sought. This is particularly concerning considering that such crimes
are against the state, matters of public concern, and national security. Therefore,
individuals or political parties involved should be held accountable for such offenses
through transparent legal proceedings to ensure a fair trial and due process, while also
maintaining public accountability.
Questions have also been raised on the motive, purpose, legality, and justification of the
use of public funds—whether utilized or not—for running expensive advertising
campaigns on all forms of media by both federal and provincial governments, soon after
May 9, 2023, and continuing thereafter. These emotionally charged ads are termed as a
tool to create a biased environment that may directly or indirectly impede the judiciary's
ability to dispense justice fairly and impartially.
Analysts and jurists believe that these divergent views demand an independent
investigation or constitution of a judicial commission to thoroughly examine the entire
event by factoring it the role, part and versions of all stakeholders including the PTI, the
Army, the governments, the interior ministries, the police, the Corps Commander, and intelligence agencies.
