Decision time

The recent spate of terrorism in Pakistan has targeted all sections of the state and society. Christian worshippers were attacked in a Church in Peshawar, a car bomb killed citizens shopping in the busy Qissa Khwani Bazaar, a bus carrying government employees to work was bombed, and an improvised explosive device was used to assassinate Swat’s top military leader Gen Sanaullah Khan Niazi.

The disgruntled former strategic assets of the state and the military have established a sophisticated and powerful network over the years, which they are employing to pursue a set of goals through violent means.

The chickens have finally come home to roost. Pakistan is undergoing a watershed moment where these elements have waged a fierce war that poses an existential threat to the state.

The response of the federal and provincial governments is one that finds pragmatism in pacifism. Both the PML-N and the PTI have continued to prescribe a policy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with the Taliban and consider negotiations a viable option in ending the bloody conflict.

The proponents of this approach suggest that the longstanding issue of terrorism needs to be addressed differently. A counter-terrorism strategy centered on violence begets more violence that in turn creates a vicious circle of endless conflict.

However, a close examination of the history of counter-terrorism in the tribal regions of Pakistan reveals that the policy of appeasement is hardly an out-of-the-box solution. The Taliban have been brought to the negotiating table in the past and the accords which have been signed have all eventually fallen through.

Back in 2006, the Waziristan Accord led to a significant reduction in troops in Waziristan but at the grave cost of the Taliban gaining significant control over the area as reported by media observers at the time. This accord also faltered with the Taliban’s unhindered violence thereafter. In 2009, Sufi Mohammad, the leader of the radical pro-Taliban Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi called off the Malakand Accord, citing the government’s failure to sign into federal law the legislation to establish Shariat Courts.

[quote]A lasting peace deal with an entity that is intrinsically divorced from the very notion of peace is surely a tall order[/quote]

Furthermore, signing a lasting peace deal with an entity that is intrinsically divorced from the very notion of peace is surely a tall order. A consensus becomes complicated when the opposing party renounces the basic tenets of the state such as its constitution and democracy. Given this preamble, on what terms would this so-called agreement be signed? Can the demonic practices of the Taliban, of violence and bigotry, be assimilated in the democratic state of Pakistan, even if watered down?

Agreeing to the demands of the Taliban would be tantamount to ceding sovereignty to miscreants who have repeatedly targeted citizens and security forces.

The stance of PTI and PML-N in the wake of the Peshawar blasts of wanting to talk to the enemy shows capitulation. It implies an inability and unwillingness of the state to reign in on the terrorists. This has an effect of emboldening the enemy as evident in the manner in which the TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid laid out the preconditions before the government for any peace talks to take place.

What is key to tackling terrorism within Pakistan is a national consensus on the issue that backs the government in an unprecedented operation against militants. But politicians, in trying to distinguish between the good Taliban and bad Taliban and terming them ‘stakeholders’, send out confusing signals to the public that manifests into a fractured opinion on the issue and an inability to gauge the gravity of the situation. It also needs to be underscored that regardless of their political factions (of the so-called ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Taliban) the Taliban philosophy in general thrives on bigotry and barbarism.

Playing into the hands of the TTP and legitimizing their presence will have disastrous connotations for the social fabric of Pakistan. The government and the TTP in trying to chart out their areas of influence may usher in a systematic destruction of culture. The heritage of mysticism, art, poetry, music and literature that forms the heart and soul of Pakistan will be ravaged like it did in neighbouring Afghanistan if the Taliban make inroads here. History teaches us that regarding the laws of the state, a change made in the name of religious doctrine (like the Blasphemy Laws or the Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan) is extremely difficult to overturn.

Political philosopher Max Weber espouses that the necessary condition of an entity to be a state is that it has a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order. At this vulnerable juncture it is imperative for the state of Pakistan to establish its authority against a fundamental threat. Leaders who exercise cowardice and focus on short-term goals will be remembered by history as those who dumped this country into a state of regression.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Tough decisions will need to be made in this battle for survival, a compromise will spell doom. The Sri Lankan government combated the Tamil tigers with an iron fist to enforce the writ of the state. Pakistan has a large, well-equipped, and willing army that can fight the threats to the state tooth and nail. At the cost of the education sector there is a swelling defence budget for what purpose? Is it for the military to silently oversee the government’s negotiations with the enemy?

We are standing at the crossroads of our destiny where the future of this country will be decided. The onus is on the politicians and citizens alike. The decision has to be taken forthwith, whether to move the country away from or towards the route of fanaticism.