Scenes of the PML-N’s Hina Pervez Butt accosted by supporters of the PTI in London made for uncomfortable viewing. Politicians have been harassed by spirited supporters of the party in the past, yes, but this time it rankled a little too much because the Leaguer was accompanied by her young son. The slightly older lot, parents themselves, felt it a bit more than they would have in other cases.
Nothing in this category, of course, can compete with the shameful behaviour at display at the Masjid e Nabvi in Medina, where spirited stalwarts of the PTI hurled horrible, sexualised slurs to the then information minister Marriyum Aurangzeb, amongst other members of the then government.
Loutish behaviour didn’t start with the PTI. Back in the day, the League also used some unsavoury publicity against the PPP and its then leader, Benazir Bhutto. Parties like the MQM and the JI, of course, did far worse, and nothing that the PTI has done can come close to that.
But it is quite guilty of the normalisation of horrid jeering and bringing it about amongst the upwardly mobile and educated demographics, who ironically perceive themselves above the Great Unwashed who they accuse of basing their political choices on very short term gains.
In the last week or so, random Pakistanis meeting officeholders of the PML(N) in their personal capacities have been harassed by PTI supporters, who mistook them for additional sessions judge Humayun Dilawar, who gave the judgment that has led to Imran Khan’s prison sentence. The nonplussed victims of the abuse can present their NIC or NICOP cards, but their detractors would have none of it.
Even if the judge were actually to be on the streets of London and there were to be a conversation (though there shouldn’t be) and if he were to only ask them to tell him what his judgment actually was, they would be like turtles on their backs, clueless about the specifics of what they are protesting. But for that to happen, they would have to let him speak in the first place.
This is not to say the judge’s conduct is above criticism or that the judgment itself cannot be criticised; it can and it should be. But in a manner becoming of a democracy. No one is denying the fact that the democratic process isn’t neat. Debates can colour outside the lines a bit and it is good for the citizenry to be passionate about politics. But if gentlemen and ladies are kept away from joining politics because their lives and those of their family members would be at risk by the supporters of other political parties, then we’d be restricting politics to a gallery of rogues who are quite comfortable in such situations.
