0
0
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan arrived in Islamabad on the night of May 25-26, leading a long march from Peshawar to Islamabad.
But earlier on Tuesday morning, it was announced that on the arrival of PTI’s long march, the coalition government had decided to hand over the highly sensitive area of Islamabad ‘Red Zone’ to the army.
However, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry yesterday evening denied reports by news channels that the Red Zone had been handed over to troops during the PTI Long March.
Officials were telling reporters that a confrontation between Army troops and PTI workers was unlikely in Islamabad as the coalition government had decided to stop the participants of the long march on the border of Punjab and Khair Pakhtunkhwa. Roadblocks were set up and paramilitary forces were deployed.
The army leadership is obligated under the constitution to provide troops when called upon to assist and assist the federal government in maintaining law and order. But most legal and political experts are of the opinion that sending troops to help the civilian government does not measure the neutrality of the military.
Prominent lawyer and former attorney general Irfan Qadir told the BBC that Article 245 of the constitution clearly states that “the army will be sent to assist the civilian government in maintaining law and order. The decision will not be made by the army but by the federal government while the army cannot refuse the help of the federal government.
In March 2014, on the occasion of PTI’s long march, the PML-N government had called in the army troops but the troops did not clash with the PTI workers.
At that time, PTI workers had easily entered the red zone. At the time, a senior police officer said, “Our strategy is to prevent protesters from reaching the red zone.”
Imran Khan’s claim about the Army that ‘if you (Army) are neutral then you must remain neutral’, is not being seen in relation to the situation in and around Islamabad which is 25 May is due to the announcement of the arrival of PTI Long March participants.
According to Islamabad-based civil-military relations expert Saeed Shafqat, the statement was not about the unrest in and around Islamabad and the role of the military in overcoming it. It’s about institutional credibility. ”
Imran Khan did not stick to his first position. The next day, after advising the army to remain neutral in his press conference, his statement was the opposite. Imran Khan said that this is the stage of examination for those who call themselves neutral. This was a clear signal to the top leadership of the army.
Addressing a press conference in Peshawar, the capital of the province where his government is based, Imran Khan said that it was his duty to take responsibility for the security of the country. Speaking to the BBC, Saeed Shafqat said, “I think Imran Khan is questioning the neutrality of the army to such an extent that he (Imran Khan) thinks he (the army) has formed a government in Islamabad.” But Shahbaz Sharif is saying that he is not getting the help he needs from the army. This situation is favorable for Imran Khan.
Saeed Shafqat said that Imran Khan’s claim in which he used the term ‘jihad’ that what he was doing was in fact jihad was relatively more dangerous. “This aspect is very worrying.”
Two days ago, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif said, “If the PML-N government had received even 30% of the support that Prime Minister Imran Khan had received from the Establishment, the country would have gone up like a rocket.” In political parlance, ‘establishment’ generally refers to the top leadership of the army.
Simply put, the group of army generals who command the evil army, in particular, are the head of the evil army and the director general of the ISI. In the last five years, the office of the Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan has been held by one person while the other person is DG ISI. The media is very careful when reporting on many generals.
The era of General Pervez Musharraf, the head of the military government, was the last period in which the media openly spoke about retired and in-service army generals, but since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in the country, only two generals have become the face of the establishment. Are The media mentions him in a certain context and the style of address is that he has nothing to do with politics.
Saeed Shafqat says that in the current political situation between Imran Khan and Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, statements like Tessa’s style are an attempt to use the influence of the army in their own political arena so that everyone uses this power for their own political gain. Used
Political observers had predicted violence in the wake of the PTI’s long march. PTI spokesman Fawad Chaudhry reiterated his position that PTI is not a militant party and no violence should be expected from a purely political activity.
Is Imran Khan signaling that he sees the possibility of political violence in Islamabad by demanding the Army to remain neutral in the current situation?
In response to questions from the BBC on WhatsApp, Fawad Chaudhry pointed out that the government was trying to turn the peaceful movement into a civil war.
In response to questions, he wrote, “PTI is not a military party. All our protests have always been peaceful. The government is trying to turn a peaceful movement into a civil war.”
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan during his press conference in Peshawar also claimed that he is a law-abiding citizen and his track record is clear that he or his party never took the law into their own hands.
Most political observers say that the deployment of the army is not a measure of the army’s impartiality. Political analyst Zaigham Khan said that the army could not make political judgment and had to come topolitical;
