The first question is: what was the purpose of this protest, and was it achieved? Imran Khan has been granted bail in several cases, leaving only a few outstanding, which are not serious in nature. There was a strong likelihood he would also secure bail within a month and a half. However, the landscape has changed drastically, as many more FIRs could now be filed against him.
If the protest aimed to achieve Imran Khan’s release from jail, it appears that goal remains unfulfilled. Conversely, if the intention was to keep him incarcerated, it seems that aim has indeed been accomplished.
The second question is: why did the leadership continue to encourage only the people of one province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), to demonstrate bravery in this protest? If this was indeed an act of bravery, then the people of Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan should also have been motivated to join in. Does this imply that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has reduced itself to being a provincial party? Alternatively, could it be that since power resides within the same province, the focus was solely on KP to leverage government resources? Both of these points are worth considering.
The third question is: If Governor’s rule could not be imposed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), what is the reason behind it? The straightforward answer is that it is due to the 18th Amendment introduced by the PML-N and the PPP. This amendment has made it more difficult for the federal government to impose Governor’s rule. What does this demonstrate? Is the effort to sustain democracy accomplished through legislative work in Parliament, or through protests in the streets?
The fourth question is about the identification of the decision-maker within the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Recent statements from the spokesman of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government have corroborated ongoing speculation that Imran Khan had reached an agreement to conduct a sit-in at an alternative location. Nevertheless, Bushra Bibi expressed a firm stance, advocating for a proceeding to D-Chowk despite these deliberations.
Barrister Gauhar holds the position of party chairman; however, it is essential to assess whether he possesses sufficient authority to exert influence over the decision-making..
The fifth question concerns the PTI leadership’s appeal to ordinary workers to participate in the protest, including children and families. Did the party leadership also join the protest alongside their own children and families? Was the Chief Minister of the KP government present at the protest with his family? Were Omar Ayub’s children and family members involved? Did the KPK cabinet, along with their families, take part in the protests? Did Hamad Azhar’s family attend as well? Why is it that only ordinary workers seem to fuel the ashes of political movements?
The sixth question is about the actuall status of the party workers: Is the worker regarded as a living human being, or merely as a scapegoat?
The seventh question is about the lawyers who have suddenly emerged as party leaders. We must ask: how many individuals joined the protest? Did any of them bring their children and families along? Are poor workers consistently being exploited emotionally, urged to confront the police and take justice into their own hands?
If the protest aimed to achieve Imran Khan’s release from jail, it appears that goal remains unfulfilled. Conversely, if the intention was to keep him incarcerated, it seems that aim has indeed been accomplished.
The second question is: why did the leadership continue to encourage only the people of one province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), to demonstrate bravery in this protest? If this was indeed an act of bravery, then the people of Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan should also have been motivated to join in. Does this imply that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has reduced itself to being a provincial party? Alternatively, could it be that since power resides within the same province, the focus was solely on KP to leverage government resources? Both of these points are worth considering.
The third question is: If Governor’s rule could not be imposed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), what is the reason behind it? The straightforward answer is that it is due to the 18th Amendment introduced by the PML-N and the PPP. This amendment has made it more difficult for the federal government to impose Governor’s rule. What does this demonstrate? Is the effort to sustain democracy accomplished through legislative work in Parliament, or through protests in the streets?
The fourth question is about the identification of the decision-maker within the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Recent statements from the spokesman of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government have corroborated ongoing speculation that Imran Khan had reached an agreement to conduct a sit-in at an alternative location. Nevertheless, Bushra Bibi expressed a firm stance, advocating for a proceeding to D-Chowk despite these deliberations.
Barrister Gauhar holds the position of party chairman; however, it is essential to assess whether he possesses sufficient authority to exert influence over the decision-making..
The fifth question concerns the PTI leadership’s appeal to ordinary workers to participate in the protest, including children and families. Did the party leadership also join the protest alongside their own children and families? Was the Chief Minister of the KP government present at the protest with his family? Were Omar Ayub’s children and family members involved? Did the KPK cabinet, along with their families, take part in the protests? Did Hamad Azhar’s family attend as well? Why is it that only ordinary workers seem to fuel the ashes of political movements?
The sixth question is about the actuall status of the party workers: Is the worker regarded as a living human being, or merely as a scapegoat?
The seventh question is about the lawyers who have suddenly emerged as party leaders. We must ask: how many individuals joined the protest? Did any of them bring their children and families along? Are poor workers consistently being exploited emotionally, urged to confront the police and take justice into their own hands?
