THIS is with reference to the editorial ‘Ban hammer’ (Oct 8), which rightly called the ban imposed on Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) an ‘ill-advised move’. When the equation related to individual’s liberty and state’s sovereignty is discu-ssed, it reminds one of King John.

When the barons protested against King John in 1215 for their rights, he could have chosen to crush them, but he accepted their demands, and that led to the formation of the historically cherished document known as Magna Carta. Today, the British parliament stands as an epitome, known as the mother of all parliaments among all democracies.

In contrast, in our political history, the only viable solution that has seemed to be feasible to the state when dealing with any issue has been that of brute force and disengagement.

The state has often avoided showing any intention of winning over disgruntled hearts. Undoubtedly, there should be no compromise at all when it comes to the sovereignty of the state, and the indepe-

ndence of its institutions. Having said that, no policy should ever be enforced that may shatter the bridge between the state and its citizens.

Presently, Pakistan has been facing a myriad of challenges. With a possible escalation in ongoing tensions between Iran and Israel, the country may even have a full-scale war on its doorstep. What is the point of adding to the turmoil within the country? None, it seems. The federal government needs to revisit its decision.

Bashir Sher
Khuzdar

Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2024