The Supreme Court has allowed the trial of those accused in the May 9 riots to occur in military courts, and convictions are starting to appear. Some groups are criticizing this approach, arguing that these political workers should not be treated in such a manner. However, I find the label “political workers” quite amusing. Can we really classify those who committed crimes so easily as political workers?
It is pertinent to examine whether political workers can indulge in acts of aggression against military installations, governmental entities, and symbols of national honor just on the pretext that they are political workers?
The actions observed—such as assaults on the General Headquarters (GHQ) and various military bases in cities like Lahore, as well as the invasion and incineration of residences belonging to senior military officers—indicate a troubling intersection of political activism and violence.
Additionally, the hostility directed toward military personnel, including the pelting of stones at soldiers and military vehicles, alongside the ransacking and destruction of memorials dedicated to martyrs, raises critical ethical and legal concerns.
Moreover, instances of arson against national symbols, including aircraft and military installations, coupled with the emergence of disinformation campaigns, prompt serious inquiries into the motivations and implications of such actions
Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that they were political workers, does that mean they should escape trial after committing such acts of terrorism? Does being a political worker grant one the right to take the law into their own hands and attack military installations and monuments dedicated to our heroes
In the grand theater of politics, some may mistakenly believe that the stage grants them license to act above the law, to wield aggression like a sword against the very institutions that uphold the fabric of society. Yet, let us not be fooled by the bravado of those who think themselves untouchable. A true political actor understands that their power lies not in chaos, but in dialogue; not in aggression, but in the betterment of the whole. To conflate political fervor with lawlessness is to lose sight of the very principles that bind us together.
The law must be upheld as determined by the Supreme Court. No individual is above the law, and the offender should face appropriate consequences. Showing any leniency for any reason will only set a precedent for similar incidents in the future.
