Dulce et Decorum est (It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country) is a very popular phrase taught to every young soldier, so he takes up a weapon and puts his life in danger when standing at the state’s border. However, when that very son of the soil is questioned and pulled weapons at by the very people he is protecting, a dilemma befalls the state.

One of its examples is the fatal date of May 9, which brings back awful memories of violent anti-state civil military clashes. Today, as we approach the mournful centenary of this tragic occurrence, our wound still bleeds with a vile pain. It was the mayhem dawn of May 9th, when the radical philosophy and anarchist politics of the PTI chairman provoked people to rebel against their  own state. The demonstrators stormed the Lahore Corps Commander’s House and organized historic demonstrations against military and police establishments, leading to immense outrage. The attack practiced anti-state operations that undermined democracy and spread extremist ideology.

Thus, the bold crime resonated across the country as people, fueled by the PTI chairman’s violent statements, staged historic protests against our revered military and police forces. The fabric of our society was shredded, and the very foundations of our democracy were rattled to their core. Not even martyrs’ memorials were exempted. Such rage even directed towards the most significant governmental institutions-a sight no nation has ever witnessed before.

The state has been stunned by this widespread targeting of the most secure security installations. But what is the purpose here, I wonder? Was it out of a desire to advance politically, or was he unable to accept the result of the vote of no confidence? How is it possible that a once-blue-eyed boy for the army ended up propagating anti-state sentiment? Was Khan stirring up the mass radicalization of political turmoil for selfish ends? Nevertheless, the narrative propagated by Khan reveals that his anti-state and anti-establishment sentiment was nothing but to hold on a political position that ended up sowing the seeds of division and weakening the fundamental fabric of our country. Clear or unclear, it was the PTI leadership’s radiated ideology that led the planning and execution of attack on military properties

As for any state, Army is the first line of defense, anyone attempting to undermine its leadership or infrastructure should be subject to severe punishment. Today, when the incident reaches its one- year mark, we as a nation demand strict action against the executers and the one who backed them, but unfortunately, we see longer delays in the court proceeding of those who tried to fabricate the state’s sovereignty, those who put national security at stake, those who operated for their selfish political gains, and those who try to weaken the institutions by propagating false narratives and later giving a vague justification by calling it a false flag operation. If this is the end, then what do we aim for? Will the law prevail, or will there be a chain reaction?


Comments are closed.