Discover how the Sacrifices of the Pawns in Pakistan shape the political landscape, where power plays and public struggles collide.

Introduction

Politics in Pakistan is like chess, where the sacrifices of the pawns are made by common people and party workers while the leaders, like kings, enjoy the benefits of their positions. Similarly, in Pakistan, political leaders stay safe and privileged. Protests, and violence impact party workers and common people, while the leaders they support remain secure and enjoy privileges. The unfair system is clear in the way it creates policies. Political decisions like economic changes or government reforms, often create problems like inflation, unemployment, and fewer public services.

Politicians remain unaffected by these effects due to their wealth and resources, while ordinary people feel them the most. Leaders in Pakistan also create divisions to hold onto power. They use emotional speeches and strategies to turn different groups against each other, based on politics, ethnicity, race, or class. This causes tensions and prevents people from working together. Supporters of political leaders often defend them without questioning their actions, creating more conflict. In the end, the leaders benefit from this divide, while ordinary people continue to struggle.

Political Divisions and the Sacrifices of the Pawns in Society

“Rising prices and oppression divide people into different political parties while they suffer under the burden. Worse still, people ignore their basic needs, just as leaders focus solely on their interests.” Faizan Elahi’s comment shows his frustration with the current situation in Pakistan. He criticizes people for dividing into political groups instead of focusing on important issues like inflation and oppression. His description of the “burden of rising prices and oppression” emphasizes the difficulties ordinary people face in their daily lives.

He highlights that people neglect their basic needs, much like politicians who prioritize their benefits. This suggests that both citizens and leaders ignore the real problems that need resolution. In Pakistan’s context, this reflects the challenges caused by political divisions and economic problems. Instead of uniting to demand better solutions, people remain focused on political loyalty. At the same time, many believe that politicians prioritize their gain over solving the public’s problems. This lack of unity and misplaced focus makes it harder to improve the situation in the country.

Dependency and the Struggle for Rights

Nabeel Zafar critiques how society views dependency and rights, with people begging as if it’s their right. He points out two key issues: the normalization of begging and the struggle to claim basic rights. The phrase, “people in Pakistan beg like it’s their right”, suggests that many views begging as an entitlement. This could be because of poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunities, and forcing people to rely on charity to survive.

Over time, this dependency has become normal, as the government often fails to provide basic support for those in need. The second part highlights how people often must plead for basic things like education, healthcare, and justice. Those in power often see these rights as favors granted, instead of treating them as basic entitlements. This makes people feel powerless and undermines their dignity. His words highlight a culture shaped by political instability, corruption, and reliance on foreign aid. This has made people commonly ask for help, while those who demand justice or accountability are often ignored or suppressed.

Counterterrorism and Political Control: The Struggles of the Pawns

In Pakistan, the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s triggered modern counter-terrorism efforts, leading to increased militancy and security issues. This period prompted Pakistan to create policies aimed at controlling extremist activities within the country. As militant groups grew, there was a need for clearer laws to support counterterrorism efforts, leading to the introduction of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) in 1997, along with later updates to strengthen the government’s ability to address threats.

Government Control and Anti-terrorism Measures

You can understand the government’s efforts to stop extremism, especially using modern technology, by looking at how Pakistan has handled political protests and terrorism in the past. Since 9/11, Pakistan has focused a lot on fighting terrorism and extremist groups like the Taliban. This has included military actions and strict laws. Sometimes authorities use these laws against political movements, like the protests by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The government has at times called these protests a threat to national security, accusing PTI of spreading violence and misinformation. 

One important law is the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)[1], which gives the government power to arrest people suspected of terrorism or extremism. People can apply the term “extremism” to political protests because it is broad. This has allowed the government to crack down on PTI protests, detaining some of its members. Additionally, the government controls online activities through the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA)[2] of 2016, which allows it to monitor and block online content.

[1] The government of Pakistan enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 1997 [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/national-practice/anti-terrorism-act-1997] to combat terrorism and protect national security. The government introduced it in response to the growing threat of terrorism and violence in the country during the 1990s. This law grants the government and law enforcement agencies the power to take immediate action against individuals or groups suspected of engaging in terrorism or activities that disrupt public order. For example, the government has sometimes used this act to detain political leaders or activists, claiming their actions threaten public order or national security. In the case of PTI protests, the government has accused leaders of inciting violence or undermining state institutions, which has justified their detention under the ATA.

[2] The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016 [https://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1470910659_707.pdf] was introduced to address the rising concerns over cybercrime, digital fraud, and the misuse of the internet in Pakistan. This law regulates online content, social media activity, and digital space to prevent illegal activities including terrorism, hate speech, and extremist propaganda. PTI’s social media presence has been a significant part of its mobilization efforts, and the government has at times blocked or restricted PTI-related content, accusing it of spreading hate or inciting violence under the guise of countering extremism.

Sacrifices of the Pawns: Social Media, Politics, and Control

The image shows a social media post from “Adnan Aamir” of the ‘Diamond Group of Industries’, which includes a code supposedly from Alima Khan. This post reflects the division in Pakistan’s politics, especially on social media where people often share strong opinions about political figures. The use of the term “slavery” is problematic because it oversimplifies serious issues, making light of real struggles against slavery in history and today. There are also concerns about the reliability of the post. Social media does not always check the facts, so we must question whether the quote truly comes from Alima Khan or if someone is taking it out of context. Without confirming the details, this type of post can spread incorrect or misleading information.

The government’s counter-terrorism approach has often focused more on controlling political opponents than addressing real security threats. Authorities sometimes misuse laws meant to combat terrorism to target political rivals. This creates an environment where they do not accept the oppressed. Such actions can discourage people from participating in politics, leading to a culture of fear, and further alienating citizens from their government. People can view this situation as a form of state terrorism, which goes against the principles of democracy and justice.

Personal experiences do not motivate everyone to support protests. Privileged people or those distant from certain struggles may not fully understand the issues and may see protests as disruptions or threats to the way things are. This can lead to a lack of interest and misunderstanding. Media coverage and how society talks about these issues also affect how people view personal experiences. For some, seeing violence during a protest might make them less supportive, even if they agree with the cause. Personal experiences can both encourage and discourage support for protests.

Shifting Influence and the Sacrifices of the Pawns in Conspiracy Theories

Pakistan’s Growing Influence on Global Politics

People used to believe that outside forces had a big role in Pakistan’s political instability, and some criticized that Pakistan could not even manage its politics, let alone influence other countries. However, this view has changed. In the 2024 US elections, Pakistan’s politics showed some international influence. For example, Trump used Imran Khan’s name to gain support from Muslim voters in the US, showing that the influence can work both ways now.

Shabir Ul Hassan’s comment talks about what he sees as a big change in the usual relationship between Pakistan and the United States. He feels proud that Pakistan now seems to have some influence on U.S. politics, which he describes as the opposite of what usually happens. In the past, people often saw the U.S. as interfering in other countries’ politics, including Pakistan. However, Hassan believes this situation is different and gives credit to Imran Khan’s leadership for this shift.

According to Hassan, Imran Khan’s popularity and ability to inspire people have made him a powerful figure who can bring change, not just in Pakistan but also on a global level. He views Khan as a leader who can influence political discussions beyond Pakistan’s borders, which he considers a major achievement for the country. However, some might argue that this view exaggerates Pakistan’s actual impact on U.S. politics. While Hassan praises Imran Khan’s leadership others may see his statement as more hopeful than realistic.

Distrust in Authorities: The Pawns Struggle in the Chess Board of Politics

“The response claims that people within the government or other powerful groups might have planned the APS Peshawar attack[3], labeling them ‘inside jobs’.” Suggesting they were “inside jobs” upsets people because it shifts the blame from the attackers to those who should have protected the victims. For survivors and families, these theories can feel hurtful or dismissive of their suffering.

[3] The APS Peshawar case was a tragic terrorist attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar, Pakistan, on December 16, 2014. The Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) carried out the attack, and people remember it as one of the deadliest in Pakistan’s history. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Pakistani branch of the Taliban, claimed responsibility for the massacre (Lewis)[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tehrik-i-Taliban-Pakistan]. A total of 149 people, including 132 children and several staff members, lost their lives.

People often associate the idea that these attacks were planned from the inside with their lack of trust in the government or frustration over how authorities handled them. In the case of the APS attack, saying it was an “inside job “suggests that the Pakistani government might have failed or been involved, which makes a serious accusation. People often come up with these kinds of ideas when they feel frustrated with authorities or believe that authorities are not telling them the full truth. In Pakistan, people sometimes question the government due to political problems or security failures.

Counterterrorism vs. Political Freedom: The Battle of the Pawns

In Pakistan, the government often creates emotional, simple messages to gain public support for counterterrorism efforts, presenting these actions as crucial for protecting the country. However, these narratives can blur the line between addressing real security needs and restricting political freedoms, raising questions about whether some counterterrorism measures are more about controlling dissent than actual security.

As (Jackson, Smyth, & Gunning, A New Research Agenda, November 20, 2009)[https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/32901793/ISA-2010-Paper-CTS-FINAL-libre.pdf?1392342730=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCritical_Terrorism_Studies_An_Explanatio.pdf&Expires=1733401497&Signature=JBaMJ-x7NpRmyZw4Lfeh9ToyPaXNd6KvBsg-VZY6vQmxeyABUERuCppyiMjj2z2MMFAvdVCaaMv47Mnwc22wU2yqxHL3~5OK3NhhVzMnDFaRgL~SRdjIMyCHQu3bdvjnEDxFmKybjiolAcu5KN7UxbKa9CKKaVgPNM9hXV5b55uYuCPJiTw0yR-QPflDNOVtBbwGOu9SjH-GmBGmwh21wm~62PlYfqSox8mK6vYId7j7OUUAEeptZAqYNbku2vX~1~FOwTsRhAhA~eI~hh7vDqd5NcLLSq3-Q3RDia~Yb2B8t4Q1B5azzdU1sx2blVwXQQRDVfl4DJSeKzaBJS2wHw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA] explain, that when counterterrorism is used as a tool for power, it often causes suffering and limits freedom. Pakistan’s counterterrorism history through operations like Zarb-e-Azb[4] and Rad-ul-Fasaad[5] shows successes against militant threats but also highlights a deeper issue: the challenge of ensuring security without infringing on political rights. In the case of PTI protests, counterterrorism actions sometimes appeared aimed not just at keeping the peace but at controlling political opposition, which complicates the idea of who or what is truly being “protected”.

[4] They gave the operation a well-thought-out title, ‘Zarb-e-Azb’, after the name of the sword of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Zarb-e-Azb was a major military operation launched by Pakistan on 15 June 2014 [https://www.nation.com.pk/06-Sep-2016/operation-zarb-e-azb-two-years-of-success] to target militant groups in North Waziristan. The operation aimed to remove these groups and destroy the infrastructure they used to launch attacks on both the military and civilians. The main goal was to clear the area of militants and bring peace back to the region. During the operation, the military reported killing over 3500 militants and destroying 1500 militant hideouts and training camps. However, the operation also caused the displacement of around 1.5 million civilians who fled the fighting, creating a humanitarian crisis in the region.

[5] Rad-ul-Fasaad was launched in February 2017 and was a much broader operation compared to Zarb-e-Azb. The operation involved intelligence-based raids, military actions, and enhanced border security. According to the official report, over 1300 intelligence-based operations were carried out under this campaign and more than 3000 militants were killed or captured during the operation[https://www.dawn.com/news/1316332].

Application for approval of peaceful protest is: “We are organizing a peaceful protest to bring attention to (the issue you are protesting), aiming to inform the public and encourage action. Organizers have scheduled the protest for (date) and (time) at (location), expecting about (number) participants. We have chosen this location for its visibility and accessibility. Police support is requested for crowd management, safety barriers, and officer coordination before, during, and after the event. We also seek a “No Accident Report” afterward to confirm that everything proceeded safely. We commit to following the agreed route and schedule, maintaining a peaceful atmosphere, and working closely with the police. After the protest, we will clean up the area and meet the officer to review the event and finalize the “No Incident Report”[https://senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1725426577_919.pdf].

The state typically frames counterterrorism as a shared responsibility, portraying it as a fight against threats that affect everyone. However, building strong support for these actions is tough without public unity. Regional differences add to this challenge as Pakistan’s regions have unique histories, identities, and views on security issues. While some areas may agree with the government’s stance on counterterrorism, others might be more skeptical, feeling overlooked or varying the state’s intentions.

Blind Loyalty and the Sacrifices of the Pawns in Political Instability

When loyalty to a party becomes this strong, people stop thinking critically and start trusting their party blindly. This can lead to distrust and even dislike of opposing parties, so much so that people automatically doubt their policies and actions, even when they try to do something good. For example, in the recent PGC case[6] in Lahore, Maryam Nawaz denied the claims, but many people assumed that if she denied it, then it must be true, thinking she always supports the wrong side. This type of thinking leads to political instability. It creates room for rumors and agendas against the opposition, knowing that some people will believe them simply just because they dislike the other party.

[6] The Panjab College for Women (PGC) case in Lahore involves allegations that a security guard raped a female student in the college basement. The incident, first reported on social media, sparked protests from students demanding justice and better campus safety. Initially, the college denied the claims, stating that no one had made formal complaints, and the police dismissed the reports. On Monday, protests turned violent, with at least 28 students injured in clashes with the police. Students continued to demand a thorough and independent investigation into both the rape and the violence during protests. The college reviewed the CCTV footage and found no evidence of the rape. Despite this, students accused the college of covering up the incident and vowed to keep protesting until justice was served. You can read the details here [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/students-in-pakistan-continue-protests-against-alleged-lahore-campus-rape].

Political Divide and Public Criticism: The Pawns Struggle Amidst Political Conflicts

Mohsin Naqvi’s post stated that sports and politics should not mix and that India should engage in talk with Pakistan, referring to India’s refusal to play cricket in Pakistan. In response, a girl named Mariam humorously commented, suggesting that an option of “curse” should be added to his post. Her sarcastic response shows how frustrated some people are with political discussions between India and Pakistan. Her comment points out that people might not take these discussions seriously anymore. They feel like nothing is changeable, despite the call for peace. Moreover, it is important to note that when

When someone from the opposition makes a reasonable point, they get criticized because they belong to the opposing party.

In this case, Naqvi’s suggestion for India and Pakistan to talk could be seen as a good idea, but because he is from the opposition, people like Mariam may criticize him not because of his message, but because of his political affiliation. This shows how deep the political divide is, where people’s opinions are often shaped by which party someone belongs to, rather than by the actual point they are making.

Political Tension and Impact on Civil Liberties

An anonymous post claimed that in Pakistan, anyone supporting Imran Khan whether singers, lawyers, or journalists faces disappearances, questioning the state of democracy. In response, a commenter accused Imran Khan of being the root cause of instability, alleging that his politics is built on lies, propaganda, and a hidden agenda to destabilize the country.

Protests are a key way for people to express their views and push for change. However, if the government labels these protests as “terrorism”, it can make people afraid to speak out or join in, worrying that their actions might be seen as violent or extreme. Moreover, this viewpoint can affect civil liberties in Pakistan.

If the government continues to equate political protests with terrorism, it might justify taking stronger actions against opposition groups and silencing different opinions. This could lead to restrictions on citizens’ rights to gather and express their beliefs peacefully. Labeling protests as terrorism could push away groups, especially young people, who are becoming more politically active. They may feel excluded or ignored if their concerns are not taken seriously by the government.

Not everyone in institutions like the military or police agrees with the government’s use of force to maintain order. For example, Numan Bacha, a police officer with a criminology degree, believes force should not be sued. He believes Pakistan’s resilience in military solutions to fight terrorism is not working. He suggests a smarter approach to deal with militancy.

Politics, Power, and Society

Imran Khan’s statement, ‘I am not their target, you are their target, I am just standing in the way”, shows the division between the people (the citizens) and the government (the state). Khan tells his supporters that the real enemy is the state or those in power. By saying “You are their target”, he makes people feel like victims in a struggle between powerful leaders.

In the second part of his statement, “I am just standing in the way” ” Khan positions himself as a protector. He implies that he is the only one willing to fight for the people’s interests, portraying himself as selfless. This helps strengthen his image as a leader who is willing to sacrifice for the people. Khan’s statement also encourages his supporters to act. By telling them that they are the real target of the government’s actions, he makes them feel personally attacked. This can motivate them to join his cause. This sense of urgency helps real people to support him, as they now see the fight as something affecting them. Khan uses this rhetoric to make his supporters feel like they are fighting for their rights and safety.

Mixing Politics with Personal Lives: How the Pawns are Affected by Political Divisions

The incident with Qazi Issa[7], a supreme court judge in Pakistan, shows how personal and professional lives are often mixed in the country. While he was with his wife and daughter, a staff member from Crusteez Donuts publicly insulted him. This attack on his time led to people making viral tweets, videos, and memes to mock him. In Pakistan, politics is often mixed with everything else, making it hard to keep personal and professional matters separate. Even people who are not politically involved jump on the bandwagon and create viral content to gain attention. People exposed personal lies and used them for public entertainment, which led to more instability and disruption in society. When there are no boundaries, it creates a more divided and unstable environment.

[7] The incident involving Qazi Issa occurred when he was out in public with his family, his wife, and his daughter. While he was enjoying his time, a staff member from Crusteez Donuts publicly confronted him. The staff member made critical and abusive remarks against Qazi Issa, violating his personal space and privacy by saying “Lanat ho ap py” [https://www.dawn.com/news/1861304].

Blame Game and Protest Resistance: The Pawns’ Fight Against Political Control

Politicians often blame each other for problems like corruption or poor management. This shifts public attention and makes their rivals look bad. For example, Imran Khan accused Nawaz Shareef’s government of major corruption, saying it led Pakistan toward serious troubles. Leaders often try to weaken each other’s reputations in politics. They gain public support by painting their opponents as harmful to the country.

Politicians use these accusations to justify strict actions against opponents. They claim it is necessary to fight corruption or protect the country. Media coverage adds to this by promoting one side’s accusations over the other. It shapes how people view these issues. This back-and-forth blame game often shifts focus away from real solutions. Leaders spend more time defending themselves than addressing the country’s actual needs.

People protest issues like high fuel prices or poor public services. They challenge the power structures controlling their lives. Foucault argues that the government uses police force, arrests, and surveillance. This keeps people in line and prevents questioning authority. The harsh response to protests like tear gas and arrests, aims to disrupt those challenging the system.

Foucault’s idea of power explains why protests continue. People resist the control and surveillance they face daily. Protests are about more than better living conditions. They also challenge how society and the government control people’s actions and behavior. In this way, Foucault’s idea about power, control, and punishment shows us that protests demand change. They also resist systems that try to control people.

Frustration with Politics and Justice: The Pawns Struggle in the System

A respondent shared a drawing about political instability, saying he made it a year ago while wanting his identity confidential. He claimed that all politicians after Quaid-e-Azam, including Shahbaz Shareef, Maryam Nawaz, Asif Munir, Nawaz Shareef, Bilawal Bhutto, and Sheikh Rasheed, deserve the death penalty. This statement shows deep frustration and disappointment with Pakistan’s political leadership. By saying all politicians deserve such punishment, the person shows he has lost trust in the political system and believes that no

leader has truly worked for the people’s benefit. Including leaders from all major parties suggests that he sees the entire political class as corrupt, selfish, and unable to fix the country’s problems.

The statement, “When courts become shops, then bakeries become courts”, is a criticism of how people see the justice system and its failures. If courts stop acting as fair and independent places for justice and start working more like “shops“, where power or money influences decisions, bakeries may take their place. This idea connects to the incident involving Qazi Issa at Crusteez Donuts. This reflects how public frustration with the justice system leads to people expressing their anger in public spaces instead.

Religious Stories in Politics

A post claims that “I have read in Surah Yusuf that he became a king after being released from jail”, and attributes this statement to Imran Khan, suggesting that he will become a king. This reflects the admiration some people have for politicians, to the point that they become overly sensitive and optimistic about their future. Such statements use religious stories to boost the leader’s image and connect with people‘s emotions. By comparing Imran Khan to Prophet Yusuf, the post tries to show him as someone who will eventually succeed, no matter the obstacles. However, this can be a problem because it might twist or oversimplify religious lessons for political purposes. Using religious stories for political gain could mislead people into believing the political leader’s journey is part of a divine plan, when it may not be.

There are also ethical issues with using religious stories for politics. When religious figures or events are linked to political leaders, as I discussed in my blog [https://contropulse.com/the-intersection-of-religion-and-development-in-pakistan/], it can sometimes manipulate people’s faith to support a leader. This may stop people from thinking critically about a leader’s decisions or actions and instead make them focus on emotional or symbolic comparisons. In this case, comparing Imran Khan to Prophet Yusuf could distract from his actual political work, making people focus solely on the metaphor.

Promoting Peaceful Solutions in Politics

Peaceful education encourages peaceful ways of solving conflicts, focusing on understanding, tolerance, and communication rather than violence. If we look at the government’s response to PTI protests, it has often involved strict measures. These include arrests, force, or limiting protests to maintain order. This shows that, historically, Pakistan has relied more on legal actions and forceful measures to control conflict. It has focused less on promoting peace and dialogue.

If authorities applied peaceful education ideas to counterterrorism strategies, they could handle protests in a very different way. Instead of responding to arrests and crackdowns, the government could focus on creating dialogue between different groups. They could understand the root causes of their issues, and encourage peaceful ways of addressing them. In the case of PTI protests, the government could have used peaceful education principles to resolve the situation. By promoting peaceful discussions and solutions, they could help prevent violence from happening in the first place. This approach could have focused on educating people, especially the youth, about non-violent ways to express their concerns and frustrations.

People easily say that politics should stay separate from other parts of society. However, in Pakistan, politics, and religion connect so strongly that they make separation difficult. For example, a respondent shared that his friend framed a portrait of Imran Khan. He also did a photo shoot with it at his wedding. Many guests, including the respondent, took pictures with the portrait and proudly supported the idea. This shows how emotional attachment to political figures can even become part of personal celebrations like weddings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the lack of openness, and clear notice, harms public trust. It also makes it harder to challenge decisions around protests and increases tensions. These actions make it appear that authorities use counterterrorism laws to suppress dissent. This leads to perceptions of state terrorism.

PTI initially promised to bring change by moving away from politics controlled by elites and dynasties. This promise attracted many young supporters who wanted a fresh approach. But if the party shifts towards the same old methods, it might lose the trust of these supporters.

Traditional power systems may hinder PTI’s ability to address corruption, inequality, and lack of accountability. People come up with these kinds of ideas in societies where they feel frustrated with authorities. They believe the authorities are not telling them the full truth. For young people who saw PTI as a hope for change, this could feel like betrayal. The party might be letting them down. If PTI focuses more on keeping powerful groups happy, young supporters may lose interest. They could become discouraged. In the end, PTI risks becoming like other parties before it. It could get stuck in a cycle that blocks progress and limits reform, making lasting change harder. Pakistan should prioritize dialogue over force in protests and separate politics from religion.