According to Javed Hashmi, former President Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, Imran Khan unilaterally reversed the party’s core committe’s decision not to enter the Red Zone or cross the government’s red line. Hashmi said that Imran has been taking dictation from ‘someone’ other than his party members. Hashmi has gone so far as to claim that Imran has been persuaded by the establishment to tighten the noose around the government’s neck through protests and agitation. And the idea to include Qadri in the protests also came from the same source. Hashmi rebuked Imran for putting democracy in peril by serving the establishment’s agenda. After these revelations, the scales have fallen from Imran’s image. Imran has been accusing Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif of running the country like a monarch. After Hashmi’s disclosures, Imran himself appears to be an autocratic leader. Stories have been making the rounds about Imran’s undemocratic attitudes within the party. With Hashmi’s expose, the cat is now out of the bag. The manner in which Imran castigated Hashmi after he went public about Imran’s indiscretions shows yet again Imran Khan’s rude side. He has been doing this ever since the sit-in has begun. Imran’s reluctance to negotiate a way out of the crisis and his intransigence on seeking the PM’s resignation were already being seen as signs of a third force directing the course of events. Imran’s options are shrinking with each passing day and his credibility is eroding as he swings from one crisis to another. He had committed to the authorities he would not enter the Red Zone; he went there. He then committed he would not cross the red line or storm state institutions; he did exactly that. He promised his crowd would remain peaceful; he instigated and spurred them on to aggression through his abrasive and provocative speeches. Then he talks of honesty and insaaf (justice). The protest that went on peacefully for days became ugly on Saturday night when the protestors stormed state buildings with the aim to create the conditions for bringing the government down. The government is on record as having made it clear to both the PAT and PTI that any attempt to invade state buildings would be met with force. The protestors carrying slingshots and sticks were clearly being instructed by Imran and Qadri to forcibly take over the PM’s House. What followed, three deaths and hundreds injured, was as much the result of the protestors’ violating their solemn commitments as the well known roughness the police resorts to once unleashed. The army has been able to keep the mob from entering the PM’s House and parliament but not the PTV headquarters (at least initially). The charged crowd managed to enter PTV on Monday morning, damaging equipment and ransacking the place, which led to a temporary suspension of broadcasting until the army finally arrived and turfed out the occupiers. We do not know how far Hashmi’s charges of the establishment being responsible for bringing the country to this pass are true. The decision of the Corp Commanders’ meeting to support democracy goes some way towards putting to rest the speculations about the army’s involvement in encouraging the protests. But it has still not entirely allayed the fear of the government’s weakening opening the door to the army’s carving out for itself a larger chunk of control in the arena of security and foreign policy, especially involving India and Afghanistan. The army’s formulation to support the democratic system does not automatically mean it supports the incumbent government too. That is still a grey area so far. To consolidate its political support further, the government in the meantime has called a joint session of parliament today. It has also decided that parliament will remain in session so long as the sit-in continues. This parliament versus street confrontation seems destined to settle parliament’s sovereign status. In any case, a motley crowd of rowdy supporters should not be allowed to overthrow an elected government. The PM’s reiteration of his resolve not to resign at gunpoint will save the country from setting a wrong precedent, and is therefore a welcome step. Amidst this cacophony, the role of the electronic media in broadcasting unsubstantiated rumours is irresponsible and deplorable. If the attack on journalists by the police was wrong and condemnable, the media’s role in jumping to the (wrong) conclusions is as bad.