Pakistan Amid Protests and Sovereignty

In the last week of November 2024, Pakistan amid protests and sovereignty witnessed a surge in demonstrations led by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which sparked a political and social storm. The protests involved confrontations with the state, prompting a significant response. This response included media restrictions and an internet shutdown aimed at curbing the spread of the protests and their accompanying narrative. While such actions are not unusual in politically charged environments, they raised questions about the limits of state authority in managing dissent. In Pakistan, as in any nation, the response to unrest reflects the socio-political context. This context has been shaped by decades of political polarization, civil-military relations, and national security challenges. The way forward, however, always remains open for dialogue, not for escalations, as peaceful resolutions must take precedence over conflict.

Against this backdrop, a session on December 4, 2024, hosted by Senator Saud Anwar in Connecticut, attempted to bring forth grave allegations regarding Pakistan’s handling of recent PTI protests.

Spearheaded by prominent diaspora figures, the session accused the Pakistani state of using disproportionate force against protestors, framing the events as a “military-sanctioned massacre“. However, a closer examination reveals significant gaps in their arguments, reflecting selective framing that prioritizes political narratives over facts.

Also See: Lockdowns and Protests: A Governance Crisis in Pakistan

Weaponizing Human Rights for Political Agendas

Central to the discussion were allegations of military snipers, live ammunition, and suppressed casualty figures. These claims were purportedly corroborated by media outlets such as Al Jazeera, Reuters, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and others. However, these claims largely lack verifiable evidence. The exaggerated casualty figures resemble earlier misinformation during PTI protests. During those protests, PTI leadership debunked claims of 300 deaths and confirmed 12 casualties.

The use of war-like terminology during the session, such as references to an “escalation ladder” against the state, underscores a deliberate narrative strategy. However, what the speakers failed to mention was PTI’s own escalation over the past 33 months. PTI has moved from inciting public confrontations to fostering an environment of political polarization. This selective framing conveniently overlooks how PTI’s confrontational approach has exacerbated tensions, creating a volatile political landscape.

Challenging Transnational Repression Parallels

The session invoked comparisons between Pakistan’s alleged suppression of diaspora dissent and India’s targeted actions against Sikh activists abroad. However, such parallels fail to hold under scrutiny. Indian Sikhs, particularly Khalistan activists, have documented cases of extrajudicial killings and surveillance abroad, as seen in the recent assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. These incidents underline a systematic approach to suppress dissent, often at the expense of host countries’ sovereignty.

In contrast, the Pakistani diaspora enjoys significant freedom of expression, often using platforms in Western democracies to criticize state policies without fear of reprisal. From fiery speeches to viral social media campaigns, Pakistani political activists and influencers abroad have repeatedly exercised their right to dissent, including harsh critiques of military and government institutions. No documented cases suggest that Pakistan’s state machinery has engaged in targeted killings or systematic suppression of its diaspora critics.

This distinction underscores a critical difference: while India’s actions against its Sikh diaspora reflect a tangible and documented campaign of repression, Pakistan faces accusations rooted in conjecture and selective framing. To conflate the two is to obscure the nuances of transnational repression and undermine the credibility of genuine human rights concerns.

Protests vs. State Stability: A Broader Perspective

Protests are a democratic right, but when they devolve into violence and anti-military rhetoric, they threaten not just governance but the state’s stability. The December 4 session portrayed the state’s response as uniquely oppressive, drawing parallels to the 1971 secession crisis. Yet, such comparisons are both flawed and misleading. The events of 1971 were shaped by a confluence of internal strife and external interference—an entirely different geopolitical context. Using this as a yardstick to frame current political dynamics dilutes the context of today’s Pakistan, which is facing challenges largely shaped by hybrid warfare and digital propaganda.

Moreover, panelists like Ryan Grim and Mehlaqa Samdani called for sanctions and U.S. interventions, even invoking Pakistan’s nuclear program and regional instability as justifications. Such calls not only reflect external interference but also disregard Pakistan’s sovereignty and the broader geopolitical complexities of South Asia.

The rhetoric of “military massacres” also fails to acknowledge global precedents. Even the U.S.—often cited as a democratic ideal—has a history of using force during protests. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, law enforcement met demonstrations outside the White House with tear gas, rubber bullets, and roadblocks. Although controversial, authorities framed these measures within the context of their mandate to maintain order. Would international actors have questioned U.S. sovereignty under similar circumstances? Such comparisons highlight the need to evaluate state actions within their specific socio-political environments, rather than through an overly critical, external lens.

Human Rights and Sovereignty: The Exploitation Dilemma

The panelists’ rhetoric of transnational repression, invoking Pakistan’s alleged suppression of diaspora dissent, raises critical questions about interference in internal matters.

Sovereignty remains a cornerstone of international relations, and using human rights as a pretext to challenge it risks undermining the very principles these advocates claim to uphold.

Accusations of state repression also ignored the PTI’s own role in escalating tensions. Over the past three years, PTI’s confrontational tactics—ranging from targeted attacks on state institutions to the systematic vilification of the military—have tested the limits of democratic discourse. This deliberate omission by the Dec 4 panel creates a one-sided narrative that misses the broader picture of political dynamics in Pakistan.

The Broader Context: External and Internal Vulnerabilities

Pakistan’s challenges are multifaceted, shaped by both internal discord and external pressures. Pakistan’s precarious position as a nuclear state in a volatile region makes it susceptible to both internal and external challenges. External actors—be it Indian propagandists leveraging fake news platforms, or terrorist groups targeting the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—capitalize on internal dissent to weaken Pakistan. The Karachi suicide bombing in October 2024, targeting Chinese nationals, exemplifies how anti-state elements exploit societal fissures for strategic gains.

Moreover, India’s Hindutva-driven propaganda, for instance, has weaponized historical grievances to malign Pakistan internationally. The EU Disinfo Lab exposed India’s reliance on fake news platforms to propagate anti-Pakistan narratives, underscoring the external dimensions of this information warfare. Domestically, groups like PTI amplify these fissures, inadvertently playing into the hands of adversaries seeking to destabilize Pakistan.

The Connecticut session failed to address these broader contexts, instead focusing narrowly on vilifying the state apparatus. The weaponization of misinformation, both by domestic political actors and international lobbies, has become a tool to fracture Pakistan’s social fabric.

Critical Claims and the Question of Accountability

The panelists called for an independent investigation into the alleged massacre, asserting that U.S.-made Remington rifles were used against protesters. They urged the United States to impose sanctions, visa bans, asset freezes, and halt any financial or military support to the Pakistani military and individuals such as General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS), citing this as aligning with Amnesty International’s stance on the unlawful use of force. Furthermore, a letter signed by 62 individuals was referenced, calling for accountability regarding these claims.

One of the panelists, Moeed Pirzada, reiterated that the massacre occurred at D-Chowk, just a few kilometers from Pakistan’s Parliament and Prime Minister’s House. He compared the incident to one occurring outside the White House or 10 Downing Street. Pirzada emphasized that there is no justification for the killings. He pointed to clear evidence that military snipers, not paramilitary forces, fired military-grade weapons at unarmed protesters. Pirzada also referenced the 1967 novel One Hundred Years of Solitude. He drew a parallel to the Columbine High School Massacre (Banana Massacre), suggesting that the military’s actions mirror historical massacres.

Scrutinizing Allegations

However, these allegations deserve careful scrutiny, particularly in light of the broader political dynamics. The use of sweeping claims, especially with scant verifiable evidence, risks distorting the true nature of events. It also undermines efforts for reconciliation. We must emphasize ensuring transparency and accountability in every instance. At the same time, we must recognize that the political landscape in which these events occur should not be ignored or conveniently overlooked for the sake of a political narrative.

Foreign calls for sanctions, visa bans, and intervention, disguised as human rights advocacy, cross a dangerous line—especially when targeting Pakistan’s Army Chief. This isn’t justice; it’s a politically charged vendetta masquerading as concern.

It is critical to question whether external interventions of this nature truly serve the cause of justice or whether they risk undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty. Every nation has its unique socio-political dynamics, and while international scrutiny is essential for accountability, it must not come at the cost of disregarding these unique circumstances. Imposing sanctions or influencing Pakistan’s internal matters based on selective narratives could set a dangerous precedent, especially when internal processes for addressing these issues are already in motion.

A Path Forward

The December 4 session highlighted critical concerns, but its selective framing undermines its credibility. Pakistan’s state institutions must ensure transparency and accountability, particularly in managing dissent. Equally, political actors like PTI must recognize that weaponizing narratives against the military or state serves no purpose but to erode societal cohesion.

Both sides must step back from the brink of escalation. PTI must transition from confrontational politics to constructive dialogue, while the government must address dissent without heavy-handedness. The state cannot allow protests to hold it hostage, but it also cannot afford to alienate opposition voices by using excessive force.

The rhetoric of “escalation ladders” and “military massacres” must be grounded in facts rather than selective narratives. Lessons from the 1971 crisis emphasize the cost of division; history should inform unity, not deepen discord. Pakistan’s democracy, though fragile, can withstand these challenges if all stakeholders prioritize national interest over personal agendas.

Only through balanced discourse and sincere reconciliation can Pakistan deal with its current crises while safeguarding its sovereignty and stability. The stakes are too high to allow misinformation and selective advocacy to dictate the nation’s future. The global community must exercise caution when weighing in on internal affairs, as every nation’s path to reconciliation is deeply personal and influenced by unique historical and political factors.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

South Asia Times

Pakistan Amid Protests and Sovereignty