PTI: Politics or the Proxy?

The troubling question  revolves around the politicization of protest and its potential transformation into a proxy tool
. While it is within the rights of political parties to engage in protests, it is imperative that such actions do not morph into a representation of someone else’s interests.
The current PTI protest movement warrants attention on several fronts.
Firstly, the timing of these protests raises questions. The PTI’s decision to take to the streets during the visit of the Chinese president, the expected arrival of the Saudi crown prince, negotiations with the IMF, and the visit of the Turkish president, as well as the presence of the Malaysian Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, seems to suggest a deliberate intertwining of PTI’s politics with national and international events. This pattern raises concerns and gives the impression that the PTI has framed its politics as a confrontation between itself and the economy.
Secondly, the involvement of Afghan citizens in the protests, coupled with the reported presence of weapons, casts doubt on the PTI’s professed commitment to peace. The subsequent tweet from Kabul, commenting on domestic political matters in Pakistan, further complicates the situation. Any external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, whether motivated by the ban on PTM or other factors, is not conducive to fostering harmonious relationships among brotherly countries.
Thirdly, it is essential to acknowledge the detrimental impact of such protests on the economy and the everyday lives of citizens. The PTI’s seemingly indifferent stance towards these repercussions prompts the question of whether the party is purposefully leveraging protests with full cognizance of the associated disruptions. This leads to the inference that the PTI’s strategy has shifted towards a dichotomy of PTI versus the economy.
Finally, the invitation extended by Barrister Saif to Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar to address the protest raises significant ethical and diplomatic concerns. The justifiability of such an invitation remains dubious.
In conclusion, it is imperative for the PTI to recognize the distinction between engaging in politics and assuming the role of a proxy. The implications of blurring this line carry far-reaching consequences for the country’s internal stability, diplomatic relations, and economic well-being.