THERE may be a lawful reason or explanation for the move, but none has been publicly provided so far. Furthermore, it is not clear why a caretaker government should intervene in what is manifestly a policy area best left to an elected government. The chief of the banned Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, Ahmed Ludhianvi, has been removed from the Fourth Schedule by the caretaker Punjab government. As a result of his removal from the terror watch list, a freeze on the ASWJ leader’s assets will be lifted, travel restrictions will be withdrawn and, presumably, he will be allowed to campaign on behalf of ASWJ candidates in the upcoming election. It was already remarkable that several ASWJ candidates, including Aurangzeb Farooqui, president of the group but a candidate of the Rah-i-Haq Party, had been cleared to contest the general election. Now, it appears a banned party and its leadership can look forward to influencing the election in several constituencies across the country. Why has this become possible? Certainly, the law must be applied fairly and transparently. The preferred method of the state to use ad hoc and temporary measures against some banned militant outfits invariably runs into legal trouble. The courts cannot be faulted for applying the law and abiding by due process.

The questions, then, are mostly for the executive. Surely, at a minimum, a group accused by the state itself of involvement in militancy and spreading sectarian hatred should be required to publicly renounce violence and hate speech before any individuals associated with it can be considered poll candidates. But nothing of the sort appears to have been attempted with the ASWJ, and the group does not seem to be under any pressure to abide by the normal rules of electoral politics. If the ASWJ is suddenly finding itself the beneficiary of inexplicably generous treatment by the state, other proscribed groups and individuals on watch lists will surely seek similar treatment. What could be the logic behind such moves at a time when the country once again faces the strictures of being on the FATF grey list? It is also highly unusual for a caretaker administration to concern itself with such matters. Neither the elected governments that recently completed their terms nor the courts had seen fit to intervene in the matter, so why the quick action by the caretakers? More transparency, and common sense, is urgently needed.

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2018