Daily Pakistan Online News, Sports, Blogs, Media
By Muzaffar Ali
The statement made by Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Ahmad Khan emphasizes that the state holds the sole right to use arms, and any other entity exercising this right would be considered terrorism. This assertion is rooted in the concept of state monopoly on violence, a fundamental principle in international law and political philosophy.
In the context of Pakistan’s constitution, Article 245 grants the armed forces the power to aid civil authorities in maintaining law and order. However, this provision also mandates that the military act in accordance with the constitution and law. The recent 26 November massacre of PTI protesters has raised questions about the government’s adherence to these principles.
Critics argue that the government’s response to the protests, which resulted in multiple casualties and injuries, was disproportionate and unjustified. The use of live ammunition, tear gas, and physical force by security personnel has been widely condemned by human rights organizations and international observers. In light of these events, Malik Ahmed Khan’s statement can be seen as an attempt to justify the government’s actions and reinforce its monopoly on violence.
However, this narrative has been challenged by many, including opposition parties, civil society organizations, and independent media outlets. They argue that the government’s actions were a clear violation of the protesters’ fundamental rights, including the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression . The incident has also raised concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the increasing militarization of politics in Pakistan.
In conclusion, while Malik Ahmed Khan’s statement reflects the traditional view of state authority, it is essential to critically evaluate this narrative in the context of Pakistan’s constitutional framework and recent events. The government’s actions during the 26 November protests have sparked widespread outrage and demands for accountability, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between state power, citizen rights, and democratic governance.
