Biggest incentive for pursuing talks is that it can clear the moral ambiguity that surrounds the current situation.
RAWALPINDI: When death is all around and the drums of war bellow loudly, rational thought is often drowned out. Pakistan is facing a watershed moment in its fight against terrorism, when finally after more than 10 years of bloodshed, an endgame is being planned out. Call it what you may, but it is a tragic irony that our fate is inextricably linked with that of the Americans; our endgame in the war on terror coincides with theirs. However, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief that a decade drawn out on an ill thought-out and ill-planned war may finally be behind us.
There are a lot of questions that need answering but the ones being tended to these days are: doesn’t the state hold the monopoly over all sorts of use of force? Can there be a peaceful settlement or coexistence between the state and the militant elements? Can the militants be reintegrated with the mainstream society? If yes, then how? If no, then how does the state neutralise them?
As is mostly the case, there are two schools of thought in this scenario as well. One camp advocates achieving peace through negotiations and talks, while the other side professes the ruthless use of force to quell all opposition and militancy in the country. Since both sides claim their strategy to be the panacea for all the evils, public opinion is divided, which incidentally does not bode well for the state in the case of talks or military action. In such a scenario, it is easy to be swept with the tide, leaning on one side while foregoing the middle path in the process.
In terms of the good, the bad and the ugly, the TTP is the ugliest of them all. Since their inception in 2007, they have treacherously instilled in the national psyche a sense of insecurity and fear, hitherto unknown to the general public. For the Afghan Taliban, the region of interest and operation is primarily still Afghanistan, though both it and the TTP have strong links. The current talk of military action is with regard to the TTP led by Baitullah Mehsud, not the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar.
Naturally, the issue of negotiations with the militants is saturated with emotions; it has to be, for Pakistan has paid dearly with countless lives, most recently with the tragic killing of Major General Sanaullah Niazi and his two subordinates in an IED explosion in Upper Dir. But, in spite of that, the state will have to show noblesse oblige with a grain of salt by exhibiting restraint at this point in time and deal with the situation dispassionately and meticulously.
The biggest incentive for pursuing talks before any military action is, that it could potentially clear the moral ambiguity that surrounds the current situation. As the militant propaganda for pursuing violence in the name of faith is very clear, a serious effort to engage the militants for talks can deprive them of their moral high ground.
With recourse to talks, even if the outcome is failure, it will beget clarity of mind for the nation and then when the state bayonet pushes, it will not meet steel, but mush.
Raja Omer Shabbir
College of EME, NUST
Published in The Express Tribune, September 23rd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
