The Crisis Of Leadership

By Amir Zia 
Feb 10, 2014
The News

Among all the challenges, the rapid erosion in the writ of the state against the backdrop of the growing and expanding influence of violent non-state actors should be the biggest cause of concern for both civilian and military leaders. The continued weakening of the writ of the state has all the potential to throw Pakistan into the deadly vortex of strife and civil war. 


Last year, many Pakistanis were celebrating the country’s first democratic transition from one elected government to another with a lot of hope and optimism. Today, many are wondering whether our elected representatives have the capacity and ability to grasp and deal with the grave challenges that threaten the very existence of the state and the society.
The signs of time are depressingly telling, while the response to the life and death issues faced by the nation remains weak and meek. The elected representatives seem to lack the vision, commitment, courage and integrity needed to confront any of the challenges faced by the country – from the issue of terrorism to that of a crumbling economy and the crisis of governance.
Among all the challenges, the rapid erosion in the writ of the state against the backdrop of the growing and expanding influence of violent non-state actors in recent months should be the biggest cause of concern for both civilian and military leaders. The continued weakening of the writ of the state has all the potential to throw Pakistan into the deadly vortex of strife and civil war.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government has embarked on a dangerous course by accepting the Al-Qaeda linked local Taliban as a ‘legitimate’ stakeholder in the country and starting negotiations with their nominated committee. This move is all set to further weaken the state and its writ as it has allowed the Taliban and their sympathisers to dictate the agenda of political discourse and set the national narrative that has all the deadly ingredients to further polarise and divide the people on religious grounds. To their credit, the Taliban have always made it explicitly clear that they want to change the structure of the Pakistani state and scrap its constitution in line with their interpretation of Islam.
Even the outcome of the first round of the so-called ‘peace talks’ between the government- and the Taliban-nominated committees makes it evident what one should expect from this controversial process and how these non-state actors want to use it to their advantage.
The core issue of these talks, according to one of the Taliban committee members, Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid, should be the ‘implementation of Shariah’ rather than terrorism. The Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid has backed Maulana Aziz’s stand by saying that talks would only be held under the Quran and Sunnah.
With just one master-stroke, the Taliban successfully managed to (or should we say allowed to) shift the focus of talks and sidetrack the real issue of religiously motivated violence and terrorism. The Taliban note of dissent came when the echo of the official statement issued after the first round of talks had not even died down.
The government-nominated team hardly managed to bring the issue of all the suicide bombings and killings of innocent civilians and the security personnel into the focus. It seems that the Pakistani state and its institutions are being tried and held accountable rather than the terrorists who are responsible for more than 50,000 deaths since early 2002. 
Ironically, the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and their respective allies have helped the Taliban achieve this upper hand both in negotiations and conflict. These mainstream political forces begged, pleaded and argued in favour of talks for months – deliberately ignoring the complexity and gravity of the challenge of extremism and terrorism and how it threatens the entire fabric of the society. 
The other major political parties, including the Pakistan People’s Party, appear divided and confused, failing to create any forceful alternate voice. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari does tweet aggressively against the Taliban, but his parliamentary party leader and other stalwarts definitely are on a different plane. 
In a nutshell, in the name of national consensus and so-called peace, the elected civilian leaders are all set to surrender the country to violent non-state actors. This strategy (if it can be called one) gives a loud and clear message that our weak-kneed government will yield to any terrorist group that raises weapons against the state and has the determination to kill and get killed for its mission.
Welcome to the Pakistan of 2014 where civilian leaders are ready to forget and forgive all the heinous crimes and mass murders carried out by non-state actors like the Taliban. 
And now compare this to the former British premier Margaret Thatcher’s iron resolve who once said; “To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes…”
What great cause could be served, fought and won under the banner of so-called national consensus as advocated and interpreted by most of our civilian leaders? This only shows that none of them is ready to take the responsibility or has the guts to fight for his beliefs.
Our civilian leaders seem ignorant of the fact that a bad peace is even worse than a war. There are times in history when the only option available is to fight a war that has been imposed on a nation. And wars cannot be won without fighting. The policy of appeasing non-state actors has never worked in any country – from neighbouring India to Sri Lanka. 
The Indians dealt with all insurgencies – from Kashmir to East Punjab and Assam to Manipur – with an iron hand. Our Sri Lankan friends did the same while crushing the Tamil fighters, as did Saudi Arabia in the bloody siege of Mecca in 1979. The so-called fervour of the Islamic militants holed in the Masjid al-Haram did not deter the Saudis from taking decisive action against them.
There are many other such instances in modern history where courageous and determined leadership successfully managed to crush those who raised arms against the state.
But not so in Pakistan under the present set of civilian rulers. If the former PPP government dillydallied in taking ownership of the war against terrorists and left it only to the khakis to deal with the challenge, the Sharif government seems all set to handover Pakistan to the militants on a silver platter.
Perhaps, this is the short-cut Sharif has selected in an attempt to impose his style of Shariah, which once he wanted to do in 1999 and become the ameerul momineen. At that time his aspirations were cut short by the bloodless military coup of October 1999. Sharif seems to have picked up the thread from where he left it last, perhaps believing his road is now open and clear.
But aren’t our civilian lords and masters playing with fire. Aren’t they putting the country at stake by appeasing the militants and trying to cut unholy deals with them?
In politics, often a right decision becomes wrong if taken after too much delay. And here, it is the ‘tragedy of delay’ that is costing Pakistan dearly. Pakistan’s armed forces have all the capacity, courage and resolve to overcome this existentialist internal threat. The only thing the country needs is a courageous and determined leadership. Is there any elected civilian leader who can take up the gauntlet? The landscape appears too barren.

Let's Talk

By Amir Zia
Feb. 3, 2014
The News

I am sure that Prime Minister Sharif, given his penchant for non-violence and peace at every cost, will offer his usual soft grin for public consumption and continue to press for talks with the local Taliban no matter how many bombs they explode and security personnel and civilians they kill.
 
Many weak-hearts – like me – heaved a sigh of relief when last week Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced to give peace yet another chance. We should be thankful to God that all the talk of “fighting force with force” has been abandoned. Sanity prevailed and Pakistan pulled back from waging an unnecessary war against the holy warriors for their justified anger and reaction against US drone attacks and the presence of Pakistani troops in the tribal areas.
The killing of our few thousand soldiers and insignificant attacks on defence installations can be forgiven to bring the local Taliban militants and Al-Qaeda allies on the negotiations table. The civilian deaths in suicide bombings and targeted killings can also be forgotten in the larger interest of the Muslim ummah. (Ideological states like Pakistan should never think in terms of national interest. The ummah’s interest remains paramount and supreme).
The Taliban fighters were only venting their pent-up steam and catharsis by bombing places of worship, schools and markets, beheading Pakistani soldiers and killing civilians – men, women and children.
Should we treat these ‘minor’ offences as a declaration of war on the state and high treason? Certainly not! Yes, we have tough laws against crimes like murder and terrorism, but don’t we know that mass killings often transform into a mere negotiating point and are seldom punished. This is the lesson of history. The French philosopher, Voltaire, so rightly said; “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers…”
Our two successive civilian governments have gone a step forward. Let alone mass killings, they don’t even believe in punishing a murderer. Remember that we have a moratorium placed on the death penalty. As far as high treason charges are concerned, isn’t Prime Minister Sharif’s government pressing them so dutifully against Pervez Musharraf – a former army chief? Musharraf’s ‘crimes and treason’ are far graver than all executions and mass killings committed by the ‘martyred’ and the living local Taliban leaders and their men put together. Under the able-leadership of premier Sharif, the government will negotiate, forget and forgive and reconcile with Mullah Fazlullah, and all his likes and their band of warriors, but will make sure that Musharraf is tried, convicted and punished.
All those beating their chests over the formation of a committee for peace talks with the militants and accusing the prime minister and his team of lack of vision and indecisiveness are lackeys of the United States. Period!
Our premier is a wise man. He is a man of peace. He articulates the collective wisdom of parliament where another wise-man-in-waiting, Imran Khan, has long been nudging and coaxing the government to embrace our estranged Taliban brothers. And let’s not forget all the other visionary and honest politicians inside and outside parliament – from Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Maulana Samiul Haq to Munawwar Hasan – who have also been advocating for a deal with the militants.
Prime Minister Sharif did no wrong by listening to the advice of fellow politicians and following his heart. His commitment to the elusive peace talks in spite of all the violence unleashed by the holy warriors places him in the same league of peaceniks like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. In fact, our prime minister can safely be placed on a higher pedestal than that of India’s ‘Mahatma’ because, on hindsight, the British Raj forces appear less violent and bloodthirsty compared to the non-state Islamic warriors of today’s Pakistan.
Sticking to the policy of non-violence in this day and age – when Sharif is an all powerful prime minister and the army chief often seen tailing him in his outings – requires loads of restraint, a mighty heart and courage. Offering your other cheek after every symbolic insult and slap in the form of a bomb explosion and killings of some civilians or men in uniform can only be done by a man who really believes giving peace chance after chance. Our prime minister’s patience is inexhaustible.
Doesn’t this commitment to peace and talks’ make our honourable prime minister a frontrunner in the race for the next Nobel Peace Price? I wish it was in my power to nominate him for this coveted prize. But wishes are not horses, therefore, my dear reader your humble writer cannot get our beloved prime minister the much-deserved peace price.
Some distracters raise objections that prime minister failed to outline the parameters of negotiations. But haven’t they heard him saying that talks will be under the ambit of the constitution. This means 50 percent of the target has already been achieved. The remaining 50 percent seems difficult to materialise because the holy warriors don’t recognise the constitution and consider democracy against the tenets of Islam. Going by the government school grading system, 50 percent is well above passing marks.
Then we have those pessimists who express concerns about the give-and-take between the government and militants. Should this be a cause of concern when brothers negotiate among themselves? At least from the government side one can safely say that the talks will be done under the ‘whatever is mine is thine’ spirit. Of course, our Taliban brothers would keep whatever is already under their belt along with a few more morsels the government remains happy to part with.
The near-term demands and aspirations of the Taliban are clear and simple;
• The government should halt the US drone strikes. (This is the only one which Pakistan cannot fulfil as unfortunately Americans don’t listen to our sane counsel)
• Pull troops out of the tribal areas.
• Give local and foreign militants freedom to operate from Pakistani territory; this means allowing them to rest, regroup, plan and launch attacks in the region and across the globe in line with Al-Qaeda’s philosophy.
• Allow militants to run a state within a state and enforce their version of the Shariah in the areas they control.
• Give them freedom to expand and beef up their networks in all Pakistani cities and towns so that they can start influencing society and politics more and more.
• Permit militants to raise funds from the settled areas – from Karachi to Peshawar – through extortion (donation) and a few other unpopular means like bank robberies and kidnapping people for ransom.
• Free all their associates languishing in various jails
• And the state should compensate them through money and other incentives for offering resistance to their holy mission.
The long-term goal of our Taliban brothers is to do away with the constitution and democracy. Let’s keep hands on our hearts and ask ourselves honestly: is it such a huge price to pay for peace? Should we be bothered about the world’s reaction once we shake hands and strike a deal with the Taliban? 
I am sure that Prime Minister Sharif, given his penchant for non-violence and peace at every cost, will offer his usual soft grin for public consumption and continue to press for talks with the local Taliban no matter how many bombs they explode and how many security personnel and civilians they kill.
Indeed it is a comforting thought that our leadership is so averse to fighting and so committed to non-violence. One feels assured that our state has so readily ended its monopoly on violence and accepted to share it with non-state actors who someday might become the new law themselves.
Therefore, let’s all talk about the possible success of these talks… let’s talk about the Pakistan of the future once these talks succeed. Let’s support these talks which recognise the local Taliban and other Al-Qaeda allies as legitimate players and stakeholders in our state. The prime minister and his men are on the right course… Pakistan is heading in the right direction. Let’s talk and keep talking… that’s the best we can do.