Hooligans’ takeover in Quetta

When the protesters in Quetta started firing to force closure of shops on Wednesday, they lost their right to protest; rather, they created reasons for their arrests. When the protesters fired upon the unwilling shopkeepers, it became of no consequence whether their demands were just. It, however, became more important that they be held for violence and injuring peaceful citizens. Reports indicate that the protesters did not have government's permission to organise a public protest. No route or site was fixed for the protesters. They tried to forcibly close businesses in the city. They were armed, which would have been illegal even if they had permission to stage protest. In the end the protesters injured three individuals of whom two were said to be in critical condition. For Balochistan government to allow such illegalities taking place in public in the capital city, shows how ineffective Dr Malik's rule is. The protesters, who had no permission, should have been stopped even to assemble in large numbers at the very initial stage and not allowed to proceed to markets and the main road. The armed protesters should have been arrested there and then. There should have been personnel of law enforcing agencies before the violence erupted and when the protesters started firing at peaceful traders. Even after the violence, the law enforcing agency personnel just showed their presence at the site of the shooting. They, however, did not arrest even the gun toting and trigger happy among the protesters. The Balochistan government by taking none of the above steps has encouraged lawlessness in the province. The authorities' unwillingness to exercise their legal powers of using force against those who endangers the lives of citizen leaves a vacuum to be filled by lawlessness. No democratic country would have allowed the kind of violence in public as that happened in Quetta. The Balochistan government would have sent a clear warning if it had used appropriate force to stop the violence. The law enforcing agencies would have been within the law if they had used violence against the armed protesters. Not just that, it was incumbent upon them to use appropriate force and save the lives of peaceful citizens. Instead, the government let hooligans take over the capital. What separates anarchy from democracy is that in anarchy one does what one wants and when one wants. It results in confusion. In a democracy one does everything but within the norms of law. It brings order. In democracies one has the right to demand and protest even for abrogation of the constitution of one's country. Even in that case, one, however, has to organise protests within the parameters of the existing law deriving validity from the very same constitution which one wants repealed. Violence, to press for one's demands is, however, a no, no in a democracy. Balochistan, the rest of the provinces and the central governments must act timely and strongly against violence to arrest the slide of democracy in the country into anarchy.