Former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) students at the Islamic University of Bahawalpur have been staging a protest for the past seven days against the university’s recent decision to terminate quotas reserved for them since 2014. The students, who were previously granted reserved seats with scholarships, have expressed their dissatisfaction with the sudden withdrawal of this arrangement.

Despite the onset of the holy month of Ramadan, the students continue their protest, fasting on the streets in front of the university gates. However, there has been no response from the university administration, leaving the students’ demands unaddressed.

The Bahawalpur students’ protest highlights the students’ frustration and disappointment with the administration’s decision, as well as their determination to fight for their rights to education and opportunities for socio-economic advancement.

Of late it has been seen across Pakistan and its illegally occupied territories that students have gone to protest. Mostly, the reason around such protests have been the hike in fees, lack of teaching staff and termination of reserved seats. Clearly, Pakistan is curbing the rights of students to get quality education. People from Pakistan occupied Balochistan, Pakistan occupied Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir and ex-FATA have been affected the most.

In a surprising turn of events, the streets of Kathmandu have become a focal point for a unique demand that challenges the prevailing global trend towards democratic governance. Thousands of Nepalese protesters are fervently advocating for the reinstatement of their monarchy, shaking the very foundations of their republic.

The voices of these demonstrators resonate with sentiments from a bygone era when the king held supreme authority. Vocal supporters of the former Nepali king claims, “Our country will regain its value and identity only if it returns to a monarchy, with the king reinstated to the throne.” Others, like Pasupathi Khadga, see the monarchy as intrinsic to the nation’s identity, stating, “For Nepal and the Nepali people to persist, we need a monarchy. Without a king, we lack an identity as Nepalese, and we might as well declare ourselves refugees.”

Nepal’s history

This fervor for monarchy is particularly intriguing given Nepal’s recent history. Until 2005, the country operated under a constitutional monarchy. However, King Gyanendra’s authoritarian actions, including dissolving the parliament and restricting civil liberties, led to widespread unrest. Public protests in 2006 demanded the king’s abdication, resulting in the transfer of power to the parliament and the subsequent abolition of the monarchy in 2008.

The clamor for a return to monarchical rule stems from the perceived challenges of Nepal’s democratic experiment. Since becoming a republic, the country has witnessed a remarkable turnover of 13 governments— in just 16 years. Political instability has become the norm, with coalitions forming and dissolving rapidly. The recent reshuffling of coalition partners, reminiscent of past political maneuvers, serves as a stark reminder of this volatility.

Economic struggles fuel discontent

Economic indicators further fuel disillusionment with the democratic system. Nepal’s GDP growth has been sluggish, inflation remains high, and youth unemployment is alarming. The departure of young Nepalese in search of opportunities abroad highlights deep-seated frustrations with domestic prospects.

Even though the grievances are valid, it is not advisable to romanticise the past as they led to the failure of Nepal’s political class—not the democratic system itself—are to be blamed for the current situation. The resurgence of royalist factions within the democratic framework will complex the debate even further.

Charting the path forward

As Nepal grapples with this crucial question is clear: addressing the root causes of dissatisfaction within the democratic framework rather than resorting to a regressive solution. The fate of Nepal’s governance ultimately lies not in the hands of a monarch but in the collective will of its people and the ability of its leaders to govern effectively.

In a disturbing incident that unfolded on March 10, a young boy named Nik Ahmed was abducted by Frontier Corps (FC) personnel from Ali Masjid, Khyber raising concerns about human rights violations and enforced disappearances by Pakistan Army-controlled forces.

Despite having a clean record and no criminal accusations against him, Ahmed was abducted without any apparent legal basis. The incident was captured on video, revealing FC officials in an official vehicle forcibly taking Ahmed while onlookers protested the abduction.

This incident has brought to light a growing pattern of enforced disappearances involving Pakistan Army and its affiliated forces. The victims, often targeted for their dissenting voices, face a harrowing situation as they are neither presented in court nor do their families have access to legal recourse. The Pakistan Army consistently denies involvement in such activities, leaving families in a state of despair.

The video evidence underscores the involvement of Pakistan’s FC in the kidnappings. The whereabouts of Nik Ahmed remain unknown, leaving his family deeply concerned for his safety. Enforced disappearances pose a significant challenge, as the victims often endure years of brutality before being released or, tragically, meet a fatal end.

Of particular concern is the targeting of young boys, some of whom are students, seen as potential dissenting voices in the future. The fear is that the enforced disappearance of these individuals is an attempt to suppress any narrative that could shed light on Pakistani oppression in the region.

With the Army engineered ‘General’ elections in Pakistan ensuring that Shehbaz Sharif emerges as Pakistan’s newly ‘selected’ prime minister, Rawalpindi would have certainly celebrated its great success. However, with euphoria of having politically ‘neutered’ the one who gave Pakistani Generals the ungainly moniker of “neutrals” over, it’s time for Pakistan’s real kingmaker Gen Syed Asim Munir [who also doubles up as its army chief] to get down to serious work and take stock of the chaotic situation the military has spawned.

Gen Munir needs no reminding as he is a meticulous person known to be one who neither forgets nor forgives. He’s already on the job of tying up all the loose ends to ensure that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf [PTI] party chief and former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s political aspirations have no scope of resurrection.  He also knows very well that the widespread public dissatisfaction generated by physical and psychological intimidation of the PTI’s rank and file is a ticking time bomb that needs to be defused quickly and with great finesse.

So, it was expected that the elections and its resultant political fallout would be high on the agenda of the corps commanders’ conference held on March 5, and the post-conference press release issued by the Pakistan Army’s media wing Inter Services Public Relations [ISPR] has confirmed the same.  

The ISPR press release states “The Corps Commanders Conference has expressed satisfaction over the smooth democratic transition of power in the Centre and Provinces” [Emphasis added]. The question that arises is- how can the army endorse untainted conduct of the entire election process so definitely? After all, doesn’t the ISPR statement specifically mention that the “Armed Forces of Pakistan provided [a] security environment for the conduct of General Election-24 as per the given mandate and had nothing to do with the electoral process.”? [Emphasis added].

Given Rawalpindi’s  history of meddling in politics, the recently concluded general elections in Pakistan were closely watched by the international community, various rights organisations as well as independent observers, and the general consensus is that the elections, to say the least,  have been “controversial.” So, it’s but natural for Rawalpindi to try and create an illusion of orders and instructions being implicitly followed during the entire election process- from canvassing to result declaration. How many will believe this is anybody’s guess!

ISPR will surely deny the Army’s involvement in orchestrating elections results, but if this is really the case, then why would there be such a pervasive barrage of accusations against the Army? Moreover, if this allegation lacks substance, then where was the need for ISPR to get so worked up and state that the corps commanders’ conference “expressed dismay that some vested small segments of polity and media especially social media have been maligning Armed Forces of Pakistan with unsubstantiated allegations of interference which is highly deplorable.”?

Similarly, ISPR’s statement mentions that during the conference it was “emphasised that due legal processes should be followed with evidence and proof rather than resorting to unconstitutional and uncalled for baseless political rhetoric and emotional outbursts.” If this menacing statement was meant to silence critics, then Rawalpindi needs to realise that unlike days of yore, such arm twisting doesn’t work anymore, and JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s hard hitting, no-holds-barred response is proof of the same.

Reacting to the ISPR’s missive, the JUI-F chief highlighted the judiciary’s subservience to the military by saying, “When a politician stands against the establishment [Pakistan Army], the judiciary becomes active” [Emphasis added], and rightly noted that “No decision of the judiciary of Pakistan is presented as a precedent in the world.” One could have rejected these assertions had Rehman been the only one to have raised the issue of an existing nexus between the Army and judiciary, but unfortunately, many others have also done the same.

In 2018, senior Islamabad High Court [IHC] Judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, who was in line to become its chief justice, publicly revealed that “Today the judiciary and media have come in the control of ‘Bandookwala’ [Army]” [Emphasis added] and that “Judiciary [in Pakistan] is not independent.” He even disclosed that “In different cases, the ISI [Inter Services Intelligence, Pakistan army’s spy agency] forms benches of its choice to get desired results.” [Emphasis added].

There’s yet another far more damning revelation coming from the very horse’s mouth.

In 2016, former President and ex Pakistan Army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf admitted in a TV interview that when he was placed in the ‘exit control list’ by the courts, the then Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif “did help me” to get out of it as “I have been his boss, and I have been the army chief before him . . .” Ruminating that “ . . . our judiciary should move towards justice,” Gen Musharraf revealed that “these courts work under pressure behind the scenes and then give decisions. The Army chief had a role to play in releasing the pressures behind the scenes.” [Emphasis added]. 

With the faceoff between the Army aided by the judiciary and the politicians supported by the public likely to gain momentum with passage of time, Pakistani politics has all ingredients of a pot boiler and holds promise of interesting times ahead!