Drift Towards Anarchy

By Amir Zia
June 16, 2014
The News

The entire arena of our politics has never been as barren as it is now. All we have in the name of leaders are not more than paper tigers and political pygmies who are in shoes too big for their small feet.

Pakistan’s ruling elite’s collective sleepwalk towards a looming disaster is mind-boggling. No murder, no incident of mass butchery or bombing is able to wake our high and mighty from their sleep. No horrendous attack on our airports, defence installations, the slaughtering of soldiers or destruction of schools manages to wake them from their mysterious deep slumber.
After every fresh act of barbarity, what we hear are the routine dead, clichéd phrases from our elected representatives. We see the same old outpouring of empty words of sympathy for victims and their families. We witness many professional mourners – politicians, analysts, commentators, clerics, our liberal, not so liberal and conservative activists – exhibiting crocodile tears on the old and new media.
But their talk never translates into action. Their public display of grief creates more divisions than galvanising the people. Their long sermons create more confusion than bring clarity on how to deal with the twin ghost of extremism and terrorism in the country.
Our civilian lords and masters are at pains even to name and identify the enemy, let alone coming up with a bold, cohesive strategy on how to deal with this existential internal threat faced by Pakistan. In fact, they remain the main obstruction in developing a national consensus on waging a war till the finish line against these violent non-state actors, who are relentlessly pushing their agenda of destroying Pakistan. But our rulers chose to waste time in holding talks to nowhere with militants, who use this window to reorganise and plan more acts of terror targeting civilians and security forces alike.
The barren intellect, lack of even simple common sense, dead conscience, and timidity of our rulers is taking its toll on Pakistan. The country is at war and the people are paying its price through their blood and tears, but Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government is too weak in spirit and too meek in action even to admit that a full-blown conflict is at hand.
In our recent history, can there be a more distressing time than the present one? This is a time when the enemy within is striking at will, and has all the initiative, but the political bosses are too afraid to take ownership of this war, lead its ideological narrative and allow our armed forces to deal with them as they should be dealt.
The government is focused on giving centrality to non-issues as our armed forces are being targeted and attacked in their own backyard – perhaps the most nightmarish scenario for any military leadership in the world.
The civilian rulers have allowed the Al-Qaeda-linked and -inspired local and foreign militants – Pakistan’s enemies from Uzbekistan, Chechnya, China, Indonesia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and many other places – to run amok in the country, challenge its writ and dictate terms of engagement, using the sacred name of Islam. The terror bandwagon, its cheerleaders and sympathisers are on the roll, yet there is no one to take a stand for Pakistan.
Nations do face wars and conflicts of far graver magnitude than the one we face today. What sees them through such traumatic times is the leadership and its will to lead the fight. A leadership that has the vision and capability to turn the heat on the enemies and take the war to them, rather than take reactive fire-fighting measures after every new atrocious attack and act of terror as the one that recently happened at Karachi’s old airport.
Yes, we can keep counting the number of such incidents and lament over the loss of precious lives as has been done all these years. We can keep analysing which faction of the shadowy militant groups carried out this or that attack and their internal linkages. Our busybody officials and ministers can, as usual, be found competing to take credit for how they managed to minimise losses or even worse indulging in blame game – as happened in the case of the attack at the Karachi airport in which the federal and provincial governments publicly accused each other for negligence.
Perhaps the appalling part of this latest terror attack was that our prime minister was, as usual, found missing in action. Barring the ceremonial statement, we have yet to hear his grand plan and vision on how he aims to take on the militants.
After the hurly burly of the attack was over, our always grim-looking Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan was seen giving details of the heroics of some security personnel on how they resisted militants, but he failed to give a course of action on how the government will deal with terrorists. Still by pursuing the policy of appeasement and offering another round of talks, or inviting militants to play a friendly cricket match as was done by the interior minister in the recent past. Indeed, Chaudhry Nisar praised the security personnel and their sacrifices when he discussed the Karachi airport attack, but his performance appeared less passionate compared to the one when he was lamenting the killing of terrorist kingpin Hakeemullah Mehsud.
However, in all this frenzy of statements, the core issue that is seldom addressed remains the absence of policy needed to deal with the twin challenge of terrorism and extremism. What does it signify in the broader sense? It tells us a sorry story of a state that is crumbling and fast losing grip on the chain of events. A state that has conceded its sole prerogative of the use of violence to violent non-state actors.
It sends the world a message that the state called Pakistan is on the brink of mass strife, disorder, conflict and civil war as it is unable to tame internal challenges and resolve its contradictions.
The internal message is as grave. The actual or perceived weakness of the state and its institutions always emboldens and encourages all kinds of militants – from Islamist to sectarian, ethnic and even criminal mafias – to expand their domain and act more vigorously to undermine its writ.
The writing is very much on the wall. Once it was hard to imagine that any violent domestic player could dare take on the armed forces directly. Now the militants do this with impunity. All long-festering conflicts have intensified and the nature of violence has become more lethal against the backdrop of the continued paralysis on the part of the government. This certainly is a bad omen for the country. Even in recent years, haven’t we seen a number of countries’ descent into bloody civil wars and internal conflicts when the ruling elite failed to resolve internal contradictions on a war footing?
Today’s Pakistan has all kinds of destructive ingredients in the form of religiously motivated militants and widening sectarian, ethnic and nationalist chasms that can rock the state and throw it into chaos and anarchy. The state is in mortal danger due to the inaction of our rulers who are unable to call this war Pakistan’s war. Once people give up hope and lose the will to fight, even hordes of barbarians like the Taliban can march into cities. We are witnessing this in some brotherly Islamic countries today.
This looming tide of anarchy and the state’s drift toward chaos can still be halted provided we have the right leadership, which is ready to pay the price of this war and stand up for Pakistan.
But is there any room for optimism if we look at the present breed of frontline politicians? All these Sharifs, Asif Ali Zardaris, Imran Khans, Tahirul Qadris and others – do they give us any hope? Unfortunately they don’t. The entire arena of our politics has never been as barren as it is now. All we have in the name of leaders are not more than paper tigers and political pygmies who are in shoes too big for their small feet. They have all the potential to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory rather than leading the nation to triumph in this internal war.
Then, who has the potential to win this war for Pakistan and its people? Your guess should be as good as mine.

Hard Times

By Amir Zia
June 09, 2014
The News

The chances are that even in the worst case scenario, the mainstream MQM will be able to maintain its unity under those leaders who enjoy the blessings of Altaf Hussain despite some likely dissents or defections within its ranks.

Crises and the MQM often go hand-in-hand. Since its impressive entry into electoral politics in 1987 – when this urban Sindh-based party swept the local bodies elections in Karachi and Hyderabad – the MQM had more than its fair amount of make-or-break challenges. From a bloody military operation in 1992 in the wake of a major split in its ranks to the police-led crackdown in the mid-1990s during the second stint of Benazir Bhutto government, the MQM and its politics have indeed witnessed a roller coaster ride ––full of non-stop action, gory violence, nail-biting drama and Byzantine intrigue.
Somehow, the party has always managed to claw back from the brink and return to the centre-stage with a bang. However, never before has the MQM faced the kind of challenge that has emerged with the arrest of its founding leader Altaf Hussain in London on suspicion of money-laundering. This latest test remains unprecedented even by the standards of the MQM, which often thrives in confrontations and uses them to galvanise its hardcore workers and supporters alike.
Although Altaf Hussain was released on personal bail early Saturday without any formal charges being framed against him, he is to appear before the authorities whenever required. This means that the challenge for the party and its leader is not yet over. The money laundering case is likely to hang over Altaf Hussain in the days to come, keeping his party and workers on the tenterhooks.
The very suspicion of money laundering by one of the front-line Pakistani politicians in Britain itself remains an exceptional development. After all, facing a crackdown by domestic state authorities, managing dissent within the party ranks or fighting a turf war with a rival political force is one thing and facing investigations in a foreign land is totally a different matter. The British investigation probe challenge can only be managed through the legal course and not through the use of street power and building up political pressure. Even if the Pakistan government sincerely tries to help the beleaguered MQM leader, it has its limitations since Altaf Hussain is a British citizen.
The situation will be a test case for the skill and political acumen of the MQM’s first and second tier of leadership on how it manages the expectations of its workers – known for their unrelenting support and loyalty to Altaf Hussain – and the domestic and foreign ground realities. 
In a way, it will be the first crisis in which the MQM’s founding leader won’t be handling the matter as directly as he used to because of the force of circumstances and his reported frail health. He will be depending more on his lieutenants to do the job of not just fighting his legal battle but also keeping his political legacy and the grip on the party and its strongholds intact.
For a party like the MQM, in which Altaf Hussain remains a larger-than-life personality and the main fulcrum in all its decision-making – giving a seal of approval and legitimacy to all party office-bearers and lawmakers to operate on his behalf – this will require a new set of internal standard operating procedures and flexibility within its organisational structure so that it can run the show in case of his short or prolonged absence because of these investigations. 
The MQM’s local and London leadership will have to walk a tight rope in managing its hardcore workers, young hot-heads and loyalists to prevent any major outburst of violent emotions in case of Altaf Hussain’s re-arrest or framing of charges against him. Despite the MQM being an organised party, this in no way will prove a mean task. It will require a delicate balancing act of demonstrating controlled aggression and protests vis-à-vis playing by the book and according to the law.
After all, the MQM cannot be seen taking the arrest of its leader lying down. This will be seen as an act of betrayal by its workers and loyalists.
At least in the first round, the MQM has managed the crisis well with two days of more or less complete shutdown of Karachi and prolonged sit-ins in various parts of the country, though even these tactics have many detractors. These protests and some ‘spontaneous’ sporadic incidents of violence in Karachi – from which the MQM was quick to distance itself – were aimed more for domestic consumption rather than making any impact on the British authorities or their legal process.
However, the MQM leadership played a positive role in bringing Karachi back to normalcy even before Altaf Hussain’s release on bail and by vocally condemning the incidents of aerial firing, forced closure of shops and setting ablaze of vehicles.
Keeping Karachi peaceful if Altaf Hussain is re-arrested would prove a Herculean task given the city’s complicated set of ethnic and sectarian contradictions where there are many violent political, religious, extremist groups as well as crime mafias which have the potential to rock the boat. 
So far the government and all the other major political stakeholders in the city have played a positive role by expressing words of sympathy for the MQM leader in his testing times and by refraining from point-scoring. This was the need of the hour. 
But if the money laundering investigation drags on or takes a more serious turn, it will also be a test case for the other parties too. 
The idea of expanding the turf could be too tempting. The PPP, the PML-N, the PTI and the other religious and rightwing parties could want to exploit the situation in their favour. This could force the MQM to take a more hard-line posture, which would not be a good omen for the city.
Within the MQM, the challenge would be how to ensure a smooth transition and operations of the party if Altaf Hussain is forced out from its active leadership.
The money laundering investigation and its aftermath were not a bolt out of the blue for the MQM. This development was anticipated and the party had already started to give indications in this regard and adjust itself accordingly. Altaf Hussain had been talking about an international conspiracy against him for fairly sometime now and party workers and leaders had recently – only a couple of weeks before he was arrested – staged a massive show of solidarity with him.
This shows that the MQM has prepared in advance for this kind of eventuality. The most immediate challenge for the MQM leadership would be to stay as a cohesive and united force even in the absence of its leader no matter what many of the doomsayers predict about its future power tussle and the likely consequences of any race for the top position. For any infighting would not just be damaging for the party – which has a large number of critics accusing it of using organised force and violence to dominate – but also for the overall peace of the city.
Like any well-knit party, the chances are that even in the worst case scenario, the mainstream MQM will be able to maintain its unity under those leaders who enjoy the blessings of Altaf Hussain despite some likely dissents or defections within its ranks.
For a party that has transformed and matured with the age of its leaders – many of whom are now no more – the transition where Altaf Hussain might take a backseat will prove another daunting task. But the MQM has indeed come a long way from where it started. It made a transition from a party playing the narrow ethnic card to that of Muttihada Qaumi Movement and is now making efforts expand roots in the other parts of Pakistan. It has all the potential to again surprise its critics who predict that Altaf Hussain’s short or prolonged absence will result in infighting and prove the beginning of its end.
However, in the near-to-mid-term, the likely transition within the MQM will keep the politics of urban Sindh volatile and the MQM leaders, workers and supporters on their toes.

A Self-Defeating Advice

By Amir Zia
June 2, 2014
The News

The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy


PTI chairman Imran Khan has again advised the military leadership to review its decision of an operation against Al-Qaeda-linked foreign and local militants in the troubled tribal areas. Ironically, his latest appeal was made the same day Chief of the Army Staff General Raheel Sharif was visiting troops in South Waziristan on May 27 with a message that the nation has rejected the “misplaced ideology of the terrorists.”
While the army chief’s statement reflected the clarity of thought of a soldier, Imran Khan’s views were of a sceptic and betrayed a defeatist mindset. The politician dubbed the restrained military action against the terrorists’ hideouts as the “use of naked force” and alleged that it was creating “an East-Pakistan like situation” in the tribal areas. 
This very parallel between the tribal areas and former East Pakistan is enough to show Imran Khan’s limited and flawed grasp of history, geography and politics. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The entire nature, scope and dynamics of the two conflicts are poles apart, but perhaps this is the discussion for some other time.
The important point is army chief’s mission statement that called for getting rid of the ‘menace of terrorism’. This, indeed, remains the most vital precondition if any government wants to revive the country’s economy and take it forward. General Sharif, while reiterating the mission statement, hit the bull’s eye when he told his troops and the people that the “terrorists… have clearly lost their cause” and are being “marginalised”.
However, Imran Khan, who lives in his make-believe bubble, passionately pleaded that the government should stick to the controversial peace process with the local Taliban that remains stalled since end-March.
Imran Khan is not the only politician opposed to the military operation against militants. He has his ideological allies within Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government – which is a reluctant partner in the fight against extremism and terrorism – as well as in rightwing and religious parties that fail to see the gravity of this internal challenge for the country.
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy. 
Rather than galvanising the nation behind the armed forces and taking the ownership of this more conflict, many of leading politicians are attempting to confuse the issue by calling it an ‘American war.’ By doing this, they are advertently or inadvertently supporting the terrorists and extremists, who want to bring down the state and see the military as their enemy number one as it is the only organised force that has the ability to foil their designs.
After being a victim of the organised bloodletting and ceaseless terror campaign unleashed since 2002, what could be more unfortunate for a country that its key politicians are unable to see the internal enemy holed in North Waziristan – the last remaining terror sanctuary on the Pakistani soil?
The pertinent question is: what do the local Taliban and their foreign allies aim to achieve through the talks? And, more importantly, whether the state is ready to concede to the Taliban demands?
To begin with, the local Taliban want a ‘peace-zone’ in South Waziristan, which has been cleared hill-by-hill by the security forces at the cost of huge sacrifices. The creation of such a zone will leave the local population again at the mercy of the Taliban and their savage ways. It will threaten the lives of those locals who sided with the armed forces. It will allow the Taliban to expand the base of their operations, run a state within the state and use the Pakistani soil to foment terrorism both within the country and abroad. No sane mind can accept this demand. The military leadership is 100 percent right in vetoing such a concession.
In international politics, peace zones are established by a third party, such as the United Nations. The creation of such zones underlines the erosion or collapse of the state. Do the advocates of peace talks realise the ramifications for the country if any such demand gets accepted?
The second sticking point is the Taliban demand for the release of hardened terrorists. Again, the military leadership’s refusal to accept this demand makes sense as these hard-core terrorists – responsible for killing countless of Pakistani soldiers and civilians – will again join the terror network. 
Hundreds of such terrorists are locked up at the 11 centres. The trials of these terrorists are moving at a proverbial snail’s pace due to absence of proper anti-terror laws and courts – issues the government and parliament have failed to address so far. 
The Taliban leadership are effectively using talks as a ploy to regroup and reorganise themselves when pressed hard by the armed forces. In return, they offer symbolic relief from terror attacks, but maintain their potential to fight another day. This makes perfect sense for non-state actors wanting to prolong the conflict. But for a state, protracted conflicts are always a bad omen.
Those politicians advocating talks and pleading with security forces not to react in the wake of terror assaults should try to go into the details of the Taliban set of demands, which aims to protect their terror sanctuaries. Should the state concede?
In Fata alone, more than 4,000 soldiers have embraced martyrdom since the start of the conflict, while more than 13,500 have been wounded. The civilian death toll exceeds 8,200 with more than 24,000 wounded. Yet, we hardly see Imran and his likes ever speaking for these victims and their families in as passionate a manner as they speak for militants. Instead, they attempt to demoralise the nation, try to insert doubts in the minds of our soldiers and belittle their sacrifices by calling the retaliatory strikes by the armed forces as use of naked force.
Let there be no confusion that it was the Al-Qaeda and its allies who brought this war to Pakistan. The conflict started when militants refused to demolish their terror network in the tribal areas despite repeated pleas by the former military-led government, forcing our troops to move in to establish the writ of the state and meet Pakistan’s international obligations.
Instead of backing our soldiers fighting this internal enemy, many timid politicians – for their narrow vested interests and safety – are preaching to the military to review its policy without realising its domestic and international implications. They choose to ignore what happened to past peace accords during the previous era. Each and every deal was broken by militants.
For any state, a protracted conflict is the worst choice to be made. No state allows the existence of a potential disruptive force that challenges its writ and makes the security forces vulnerable within its own territory.
Some rightwing analysts and politicians are celebrating the fact that the talks resulted in the decline in incidents of terrorism and created a wedge between Taliban factions. However, they forget that infighting among bands of non-state actors also undermines the state and in no way means that the potential threat has gone. Our history shows that playing one set of militants against the other is not smart statesmanship. Within its territorial boundaries, the state alone should have the sole prerogative of resorting to violence. It cannot be given to any outlawed or legal group.
The tactics of an on-off operation and retaliatory attacks itself is questionable. It demonstrates lack of a cohesive strategy. Pakistan must smash the terror network, re-establishing the writ of the state and show zero tolerance for foreign militants on our soil. North Waziristan remains the last safe haven for terrorists and it can be reclaimed by the Pakistan Army within weeks, provided it is allowed to do its job by the government and the Imran Khans of this world. But our politicians live on a totally different plane.