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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment