THEY say that there is a good reason behind whatever happens to you and around you. The events in the last few days should reinforce the belief in the rule.

Imagine if one had a soft corner for the antics-happy followers that a pir managed to gather in Islamabad. Now imagine just how painful it would have been to see a bunch of mysterious, shrouded men and women avowedly going through the ultimate rituals of freeing themselves from worldly afflictions.

The sight of a few men digging their own graves would have been impossible to bear — only if one could associate with those excavating out there for a new life. The viewing required a certain disinterest that most recent telecasts have needed for the onlooker to survive scenes that would shake up even the remotely concerned.

Just as there are so many choices to ally oneself with inside the new, ‘pluralistic’ Pakistan, provided you have the inclination, there is also no dearth of objections that can be raised to avoid association and affinity with any of the causes on display. The kafan-bardars or shroud-carriers have long ceased to be reasonable people.

Just as there are many choices inside the new, ‘pluralistic’ Pakistan, there is also no dearth of objections that can be raised to avoid association with the causes on display.

They could have been worthy of sympathy if not outright support on the basis of their fair demands, but over and above the matter of an FIR, they are not to be trusted. Their cover has been lifted. They are a threat not just for a chief minister who might finally be forced to concede the FIR and expose himself to a court trial. They are a threat to society at large.

Neither can Imran Khan be trusted. The man is guilty of having already created a new Pakistan that is governed by his own logic. There are signs that this new Pakistan group comprises hundreds of thousands, a section of which is willing to take part in the evening dharnas and listen to their leader repeat and reiterate.

There are many in the other, old vaguely connected Pakistan who are prepared to grant that Imran’s original grievances about polling are genuine. Then again an angrier, less reasonable Imran intervenes to free his odd sympathisers in the old quarters of any compulsion to be part of his campaign.

For the legally and constitutionally inclined, there are lawyers and there are choices within this option. There is the Supreme Court Bar Association office-bearer who stands by the Constitution and democracy and through that route with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — even though the prime minister says he does not ‘personally’ know the SCBA guy. Then there is a Pakistan Bar Council statement that endorses the protesters’ right to block the Constitution Avenue.

There are further choices. The debates are about what is legal and what is constitutional, there being a clear distinction between those who speak about the Constitution and those who are merely concerned with the legal which may have its own serious consequences.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is faced with a constitutional question and those who are asking for his resignation are invariably, even if a bit vainly, accused of making an unconstitutional demand.

By contrast, even though it is potentially a more dangerous challenge, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is up against merely a legal question. Those who say that it is unconstitutional to demand a resignation from the prime minister are mindful lest they mix up the legal matter of the registration of the FIR in Lahore with their drive to protect democracy.

This is variety for you; the assertion of the choice to remain uncommitted to any of the trends in itself is a manifestation of the grey area today as opposed to the black and white, establishment-dominated world that existed in the past. This is the beauty of democracy as the politicians are so wont to claim on the media — the ultimate forum where the proud Pakistani plumage is constantly flaunted.

The media itself and perhaps more than any other section, point out the optimists, reflects the developing pluralistic culture in the country. Comparisons with the past where media organisations would, en masse, be forced to side with the establishment are rife, and the conclusions drawn are a source of some satisfaction for those committed to the establishment of democratic norms in the country. They will be hoping that the variety is next carried to other areas needing serious debate and that this current episode is not an illusion created by the nature of the conflict right now.

Maybe some time is needed before this can be taken as a sign of real progress. It will have to survive the suspicion and allegations that it is just a camouflage for the old order and tendencies. Most importantly in the context Pakistani democracy must next appear to be receptive to the demands of smaller groups rather than be exploited as a justification for the majority or leaders of the majority party to impose their versions on everyone around.

It may be early days for this country but the recent events forcefully highlight a few points that can help in evolving the principles of conduct for the future. A democracy would be incomplete and a tool of convenience as long as it is applied to impose the will of the majority on smaller groups with demands that can be substantiated.

Not everyone can afford to use the existing diversity as an escape from taking prompt positions on issues, trends and forces as they emerge — least of all those at the helm. The next time they must not wait for the grave-diggers to arrive on the scene.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, August 29th, 2014