By— Rehman Yar, student of Public Policy at Government College University, Lahore.
Salt has been poured once again on the wounds of the people in an already polarized and unsettled environment. But it raises a critical question for the government: will it address the issue as a matter of political rivalry or through humane and institutional approach? The state of affairs demands something formal, rule based and institutionally solid in its response.
The long-term political struggle between the government and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has heightened suspicion between them particularly following the elections of Feb 8,2024. Essentially, the incarceration of the party’s leader, Imran Khan, along with the later incidents has intensified public resentment. Any perceived mishandling would be akin to patrolling the fire.
More recently, Salman Safdar released medical statement claiming that Imran Khan’s right eye vision has been left with only 15% vision. Subsequently, protests erupted across various areas of the country which could be further escalated if the matter isn’t handled thoroughly. The current PTI representatives are concerned about the verification of the examination of the leader of party. While the government has nominated specialists for the checkup of Khan, which has been already done with satisfactory reports. In this context, the government must manage this jssue with exceptional caution. As polarization is already high, who would then ensure millions of supporters of the party, who are currently at the roads, that the reports provided by the government nominated specialists aren’t biased?
As in the case, there is a paramount gap existing between both sides of the conflict. For this, the matter should be settled down prudently. Few of the suggestions could make the situation better. First of all, , the problem of human dignity, legal and institutional credibility is crucial. The case should not be politicised and the present health standards of the prisoners should not be compromised, medical transparency should be there and the credibility of the institutions has to be retained. If it is not dealt properly, it will ultimately reflect the failure of the governance and question rule of law of the state.
Secondly, the formation of independent medical board is necessary that would ensure trust-building. For this, the board should contain members from both sides as well as independent specialists. One specialist from the government side, one PTI-nominated specialist, and one independent specialist that must be neutral. The board’s mandate should include a comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation, and release a jointly signed medical report. Additionally, external evaluation should be allowed, if needed. It would eventually reduce the doubt of biased reporting.
Thirdly, communication strategy must be prudent, formal and institutionally grounded, keeping in view the sensitivity of the issue. For this, the government should avoid political commentary, character attacks, and most importantly media sensationalism should be addressed through regulated, transparent, and official communication channels. Among all, this stage is of greater importance as it could play a significant role in mitigating the issue.
Fourthly, legal and ethical principles ought to be balanced. While no one is above law, no detainee should be denied access to adequate medical care. Every detainee should be provided standard medical protocol regardless of their status. Most significantly, the transparency should be well-kept without politicization.
Lastly, the case ought to be used as an institutional reform, not personality-driven relief. Standardized prison medical protocol should be set in which detainees over 60 should be ensured regular specialist screenings, emerging referral procedures for the detainees, and medical review board should be set for high-profile detainees as well as transparency framework should be set. Interestingly, it would result in favor of the current government later.
Finally, the problem has to be solved within the medical and legal structure as the government will be interested in the de-escalation of the problem, in fact. The cost of not doing so may be of a high political, legal and institutional cost.
