The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) renewed its demand for an investigation into the alleged deaths of its supporters during last month’s Islamabad protest, with MNA Barrister Gohar Ali Khan urging the government to address the issue transparently and responsibly.
This call follows a statement by Opposition Leader Omar Ayub, who accused Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of authorizing violence against demonstrators, alleging that NATO-supplied weapons intended for counterterrorism were used against unarmed citizens. Ayub demanded a judicial inquiry into the incident.
In response, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif dismissed the allegations as baseless and criticized the opposition for exploiting regional identities to bolster its claims.
Asif insisted no bullets were fired and accused PTI of perpetuating false narratives.
PTI maintained that 12 of its supporters lost their lives during the November 26 crackdown, which forced the party’s leadership to retreat.
However, Gohar distanced the party from casualty figures circulating on social media, labeling them exaggerated.
Addressing the National Assembly, Gohar called the incident a “tragedy” and emphasized the need for accountability.
“Even if force was used, there should be transparency, remorse, and compensation for the victims,” he stated, adding that the government must respect the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
Criticizing Khawaja Asif’s remarks, Gohar urged the ruling party to show leadership by initiating an impartial investigation.
“These are citizens of Pakistan, not just PTI supporters. Democracy allows for dissent in parliament, public offices, and streets,” he said.
Drawing parallels to protests in countries like Bangladesh, India, Brazil, and South Korea, Gohar questioned why force was used in Pakistan when similar protests elsewhere were managed without violence.
He underscored PTI’s restraint despite the hardships it faced, noting that the party refrained from labeling its political rivals as “murderers.”
Surprisingly, PTI’s stance during the assembly session was calmer than expected, with its members opting for dialogue rather than disruption—a shift from their historically confrontational approach during parliamentary proceedings.
