Following the clashes on Constitution Avenue that shook the country to its core, Dawn spoke to some prominent members of civil society to try and understand the different points of view around the events that transpired this weekend. Dawn asked them who they felt was responsible for the melee and what, if anything, could have been done differently.

Fasi Zaka

Both, PTI and PAT leaders promised to lead from the front but withdrew into the safety of their containers/SUVs, allowing a charged crowd to run riot. The government, which obviously has shown its incompetence time and time again by not having a coherent strategy, allowed police to engage in a free for all. While the government needs to account for its brutality, the protesters cannot be excused either.

Their 'peaceful' nature was only evident when the government ceded space to them after each encroachment by the protesting parties. That's not peaceful, it is intimidation that takes advantage of the government’s apprehension towards further violence given their performance in Model Town.

Umair Javed

The government’s response was disproportionate.

They did not take into account that there were women and children in the crowd.

However, the protesters should not have tried to storm PM House. Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri, both are to be blamed for putting their supporters in harm’s way.

The government, however, needs to investigate the attack on media personnel, because they have turned the already partially-hostile media completely against them.

At this point, Saad Rafique has apologised, but something more substantive is needed.

But I would still blame PTI and PAT leadership, at the end of the day, for allowing something of this sort to happen.

Adnan Rehmat

When Imran Khan said that ‘women and children should stay behind’, he showed that he knew there would be clashes. As a political leader he played with the emotions of the people and created a situation where participants felt helpless.

He is entirely to blame for the behaviour of his supporters, who acted as if they were ransacking citadels.

The government already gave them enough leverage by allowing them into the city and then into the Red Zone. Since the army was called in to protect the government buildings, it was clear what will happen if the protesters violate the sanctity of the buildings.

The state has a monopoly over violence; they exercised this violence as a last resort.

We have seen worse cases before, where live ammunition was used against the protesters.

The government played according to the rules, however Imran Khan did not.

Nazish Brohi

There is no simple way to answer this question. Yes, this sort of force is used by the state in other parts of the globe as well.

And I believe that the state has the right to use force to protect itself.

Strategically speaking, I won’t even call this violence. Violence is what happens in Balochistan every day, where picking up bodies is the norm.

I would say the state used confrontational dispersal techniques.

The state did not use illegitimate means, but they definitely panicked.

I understand that they had to protect the overt symbols of the state, but they could have seized PTI and PAT’s moral high ground by letting them do what they would and then saying ‘see, this is what happens when you let such people do what they want’.

Published in Dawn, September 1st, 2014