The recent PTI rally and sit-in in Islamabad, starting on November 24 and culminating in a violent crackdown by the Shehbaz Sharif government, has reignited the debate over citizens’ constitutional rights, political accountability, and the role of the state in addressing dissent. Thousands of PTI activists had gathered to march towards D-Chowk since Nov. 24 as part of nationwide rallies to demand the release of jailed PTI leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan and the removal of a government they see as illegitimate highlight the long-standing tensions between political parties and state institutions in Pakistan. However, the events that unfolded during this protest, including the government’s response, raise questions about the justification of the march, the avenues available for peaceful resolution, and the future of PTI as a political force in the country.
Ahead of PTI’s planned Nov. 24 demonstrations, authorities imposed Section 144 in Islamabad, restricting unauthorized gatherings. Internet and mobile services were partially suspended in Islamabad, Punjab, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa starting Nov. 22. Roads in Rawalpindi were blocked with shipping containers, while over 19,000 security personnel, including Pakistan Rangers and Frontier Constabulary, were deployed to maintain law and order.
PTI’s march to D-Chowk, a historic protest site in Islamabad, was fueled by demands for the release of jailed PTI leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan, an investigation into the February elections, and the removal of what it terms a “selected” government, allegedly installed through backdoor arrangements without the mandate of the people. PTI chairman Imran Khan has consistently accused the coalition government of corruption, incompetence, and reliance on external forces rather than addressing the grievances of the public. For PTI supporters, this was an exercise of their democratic right to free speech and assembly, as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 16 guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully, while Article 19 safeguards their freedom of expression, subject to reasonable restrictions for national security or public order. However, the government’s response to the protest raises concerns about whether these constitutional provisions were upheld.
The Shehbaz Sharif government’s approach to handling the protest was marked by a heavy reliance on force. Using tear gas, baton charges, and mass arrests, the state sought to disperse protesters and prevent them from reaching sensitive areas like D-Chowk and other key government installations. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi cited security concerns, claiming that the protest included elements with ties to terrorism, including Afghan nationals, who posed a threat to public safety. However, this justification rings hollow when juxtaposed with the government’s lack of success in addressing terrorism in the country’s northern areas and Balochistan, where attacks have become alarmingly frequent. If intelligence and security forces struggle to identify and neutralize terrorist threats in regions plagued by violence, their sudden confidence in pinpointing terror links in a political rally seems questionable, if not outright absurd. This raises suspicions that the security narrative was used as a pretext to justify a crackdown on political dissent.
Congressman Brad Sherman — while recalling his role in the October 23 letter by over 60 US lawmakers to US President Joe Biden for Khan’s release — said that the PTI founder’s supporters had a right to peacefully demonstrate. In line with the US lawmakers’ statements, Amnesty International has said that the LEAs used “unlawful and excessive force including tear gas, live ammunition and rubber bullets against PTI protesters”.
“Even if protests become non-peaceful, the authorities must respect and ensure the protesters’ rights to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment,” said the rights group while reminding Islamabad of its obligation to provide an enabling environment for the protesters under international human rights law.
Earlier, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for calm and restraint by all sides while closely following the situation in Pakistan, a spokesperson of the UN chief said in a statement.
Adding to the variety of controversies, Information Minister Ata Tarar’s claim that PTI workers intentionally torched a container allegedly containing sensitive documents that listed targets for violent actions by party supporters. Tarar’s assertion that he could deduce the contents of the burned papers from their ashes was met with widespread ridicule. Such statements highlight the government’s tendency to rely on dramatic but unsubstantiated claims to paint the opposition in a negative light. This tactic not only undermines public trust in official narratives but also diverts attention from the legitimate grievances of protesters. Tarar accused Bushra Bibi, the wife of PTI founder Imran Khan, of being the “orchestrator” of the violence.
The crackdown also highlighted the fragmented response from political parties and civil society. Parties that often champion democracy and free speech, such as JUI-F, PML-Q, MQM, and Jamaat-e-Islami, were conspicuously silent. Their absence from the conversation reveals a troubling trend of selective activism, where democratic principles are invoked only when they serve partisan interests. Religious leaders and civil society, too, failed to step in as mediators, leaving the country to grapple with a standoff that could have been resolved through dialogue. Instead of encouraging negotiation, both sides resorted to inflammatory rhetoric, further polarizing the nation.
One of the glaring weaknesses in PTI’s protest strategy was the underwhelming participation from key regions like Sindh and Balochistan. Despite Imran Khan’s claims of nationwide support, the rallies in these provinces failed to reach the scale of those in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). Even in KP, where PTI enjoys strong support, the absence of prominent provincial leaders raised questions about the party’s internal cohesion. The lack of a unified front and the inability to mobilize larger crowds weakened PTI’s position and gave the government an opportunity to dismiss the protest as a fringe movement. This shortfall could be attributed to organizational challenges, fear of government reprisals, or a general sense of fatigue among PTI supporters after months of political uncertainty.
The government’s heavy-handed response and its attempts to criminalize PTI raise important questions about the party’s future. There are growing calls within the ruling coalition to ban PTI as a political entity, citing its alleged involvement in violent activities and anti-state rhetoric. If the government pursues this path, it will likely spark further unrest and deepen divisions within the country. History shows that banning political parties rarely leads to their demise; instead, it often strengthens their narrative of victimhood and fuels public sympathy. Imran Khan, despite his polarizing personality, remains a popular figure among a significant segment of the population. His appeal as a symbol of resistance against a corrupt political elite is unlikely to fade, even if PTI is officially outlawed.
The ultimate test of PTI’s popularity lies in free and fair elections. A referendum or a closely monitored general election could provide a definitive answer to whether Imran Khan’s claims of public support hold water. However, for this to happen, the political climate must shift from confrontation to cooperation. International observers and independent monitors would need to ensure transparency, and all political stakeholders must commit to respecting the outcome. Without such measures, any election is likely to be mired in controversy, further eroding public trust in the democratic process.
The PTI rally and its aftermath also underscore the need for a broader discussion about the role of protests in a democracy. While peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, the state has a responsibility to maintain public order and security. Striking a balance between these two priorities requires more than just tear gas and batons; it demands dialogue, empathy, and a commitment to democratic principles. The government’s failure to engage with PTI in meaningful negotiations reflects a broader failure of leadership that transcends party lines. Both the ruling coalition and the opposition must recognize that their actions set a precedent for how dissent is treated in Pakistan. If the current trend continues, it risks normalizing the suppression of political expression, with long-term consequences for the country’s democratic fabric.
In conclusion, the PTI rally and sit-in in Islamabad highlight the deep-rooted challenges facing Pakistan’s democracy. From the government’s reliance on force to the opposition’s inability to present a unified front, the events of November 24 serve as a microcosm of the broader political dysfunction in the country. While PTI’s demands for fair elections and political accountability resonate with many, the party’s strategy and execution leave much to be desired. On the other hand, the government’s heavy-handed response and unsubstantiated claims further alienate an already disillusioned public. The path forward requires a collective commitment to upholding constitutional rights, fostering dialogue, and prioritizing the welfare of the nation over partisan interests. Without these steps, the cycle of political unrest and repression is likely to continue, with devastating consequences for Pakistan’s democratic future.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.
