‘Fear and censorship cannot silence the public?…
Lawyer and social activist Jibran Nasir has criticised the country’s political and economic situation, alleging that pressure, censorship and coercive measures have failed to change public opinion about PTI founder Imran Khan.
Speaking to anchorperson Ameer Abbas, Nasir said authorities had been unable to alter public sentiment toward Imran Khan despite what he described as years of pressure and attempts to control political discourse.
He argued that if public opinion had genuinely changed, millions of people would not have voted for Imran Khan and his political movement in the February 8 general elections.
Nasir questioned how the authorities could claim to change broader public thinking about the economy, Constitution and rule of law when they had not been able to change people’s views about a single political leader.
He also criticised what he described as restrictions on political expression and media freedom. Nasir alleged that force, state pressure, censorship and arrests were being used to control political developments.
According to Nasir, suppressing criticism does not resolve underlying public grievances. He said people who speak about alleged injustices are sometimes portrayed as creating unrest rather than being allowed to raise their concerns.
He warned that continued reliance on pressure could increase frustration among citizens instead of resolving political differences.
Nasir further claimed that people were now more aware of political developments and could not easily be persuaded through fear or restrictions.
He said arrests, cases and harsh measures had not succeeded in changing the position of a significant section of the public.
The lawyer maintained that political issues could not be permanently controlled through force. He called for greater space for political expression and a process through which public grievances could be addressed.
His comments come amid continued political tensions between the government and PTI. The party has repeatedly raised concerns over the treatment of its leadership, legal cases against its members and restrictions on political activities.
