Leaving militancy behind
The electoral results of NA-120 signalled an ominous development
Plain-clothes policemen present suspected militants to the media in Karachi on November 13, 2012. PHOTO: AFP
The electoral results of NA-120 signalled an ominous development.
The most disturbing aspect of the election was the participation by two banned organisations — the Lashkar-e-Tayaba and the newly raised party of the followers of the late Mumtaz Qadri — the guard of the late governor of Punjab Salman Taseer who shot and murdered him and was later sentenced to death. Between the two they had more than 12% of the votes and were way ahead of the PPP and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The latter managed to get a pittance 114 votes.
How did such high-profile representatives of militant groups get the clearance to participate? Unsurprisingly, as an afterthought the government challenged their admissibility in court. From the party manifesto and public statements of leaders of Qadri’s party, it is evident that they are promoting narrow sectarianism and that too in total defiance of the rule of law.
ECP unlikely to use modern techniques in NA-120 by-polls
The LeT too carries a heavy baggage and its policy of Jihad is incompatible with democratic norms. Certain media personnel and analysts have discreetly mentioned that the security establishment may have promoted the entry of the Jamaatud Dawa candidate. The aim apparently is to mainstream them and provide an umbrella of respectability. But this policy is likely to backfire and there has been harsh criticism, especially from the Western countries. Even within the country liberal and moderate political parties have viewed this development with deep skepticism. Continued public support for a religious fanatic and murderer should be a cause of serious concern for the government and civil society. Whether these militant groups will be able to sustain their popularity and how it will play out in the forthcoming national elections in 2018 is yet to be seen. Role of the army and security agencies would be critical in controlling and subsequently making sure these parties abandon their militant agenda and merge with the political mainstream. The government will only pick up the courage to ban or restrict their political activity if the army and the people stood with them.
Indifference or even tacit acceptability by society at large to the emergence of these organisations poses a serious challenge.
It is not any prejudice that should govern distaste for these parties. There are some basic questions that we need to keep constantly in mind. What is the position of these parties towards education, women’s rights, minorities, economy and international relations, to name a few? Why is our society and institutions so oblivious to these fundamental prerequisites? The reason generally advanced by the proponents is that accepting radicalised political outfits in the political process facilitates their mainstreaming. It is also emphasised that after all their followers are Pakistani citizens. The counter-argument is that these groups by entering mainstream politics through the front door are likely to gain respectability. This will facilitate them to expand their political base and give greater space to spread their message of sectarian hate, religious extremism and political intolerance. Being a Pakistani should not be interpreted that his conduct is above law.
Besides, should this development be viewed as a sign of dissatisfaction with major political parties? Or is it that significant segments of population have been indoctrinated by their ideology. A more pressing dilemma is how will the international community view emergence of these extremist parties especially when Pakistan is seriously aiming at rehabilitating its image. Not surprisingly, the foreign press while reporting on the NA-120 election results focused on the significant vote bank of these militant groups. We cannot afford to ignore its adverse impact on the economy and foreign investment. Already the investment climate is poor and this development could further enhance skepticism abroad. We cannot ignore the impact on our culture and heritage if these kinds of parties take root.
Moreover, how is this development compatible with the statements that Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif and other government functionaries have been making at international forums that Pakistan is on the cusp of a strategic directional change? Has any assurance been obtained from the leaders of these militant parties that participated as individuals in the by-election that they will be faithful to democratic norms and abide by the constitution. Is the establishment promoting them, as a part of a broader policy to keep pressure on India to show flexibility towards resolution of the Kashmir dispute? It has not worked in the past and unlikely to produce results in future. On the contrary it provides New Delhi fresh ground to place the blame on Pakistan.
With national elections only eight or nine months away and major political parties engaged in a bitter war of words with not much to offer to the voters nothing creates an enabling environment for these militant groups to expand their influence and vote bank.
NA-120 poll results to determine Pakistan’s fate, says Imran
On the brighter side, new vistas are opening for Pakistan with the implementation of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The Chinese are investing heavily in terms of capital, infrastructure and technology that could change the future of Pakistan. The Chinese government has committed $56 billion for CPEC and indications are they are even prepared to invest more. In addition, Pakistan is trying to attract foreign investment from Russia and European and Gulf countries for other projects and development schemes. In these circumstances we need to be more mindful of global sensitivities to the security situation if the country is to prosper.
There are innumerable critical national decisions that we have taken in our 70-year history that have later come to haunt us. Our participation in the Afghan Jihad could fall in that category. Although one could argue that while going along with the US and other allies we failed to protect our interests.
We have erred too frequently in the past by pursuing the policy of supporting militant groups for short-term gain. This has invariably led to self-defeating policies. Let us be wiser this time as there is too much at stake.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2017.
The most disturbing aspect of the election was the participation by two banned organisations — the Lashkar-e-Tayaba and the newly raised party of the followers of the late Mumtaz Qadri — the guard of the late governor of Punjab Salman Taseer who shot and murdered him and was later sentenced to death. Between the two they had more than 12% of the votes and were way ahead of the PPP and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The latter managed to get a pittance 114 votes.
How did such high-profile representatives of militant groups get the clearance to participate? Unsurprisingly, as an afterthought the government challenged their admissibility in court. From the party manifesto and public statements of leaders of Qadri’s party, it is evident that they are promoting narrow sectarianism and that too in total defiance of the rule of law.
ECP unlikely to use modern techniques in NA-120 by-polls
The LeT too carries a heavy baggage and its policy of Jihad is incompatible with democratic norms. Certain media personnel and analysts have discreetly mentioned that the security establishment may have promoted the entry of the Jamaatud Dawa candidate. The aim apparently is to mainstream them and provide an umbrella of respectability. But this policy is likely to backfire and there has been harsh criticism, especially from the Western countries. Even within the country liberal and moderate political parties have viewed this development with deep skepticism. Continued public support for a religious fanatic and murderer should be a cause of serious concern for the government and civil society. Whether these militant groups will be able to sustain their popularity and how it will play out in the forthcoming national elections in 2018 is yet to be seen. Role of the army and security agencies would be critical in controlling and subsequently making sure these parties abandon their militant agenda and merge with the political mainstream. The government will only pick up the courage to ban or restrict their political activity if the army and the people stood with them.
Indifference or even tacit acceptability by society at large to the emergence of these organisations poses a serious challenge.
It is not any prejudice that should govern distaste for these parties. There are some basic questions that we need to keep constantly in mind. What is the position of these parties towards education, women’s rights, minorities, economy and international relations, to name a few? Why is our society and institutions so oblivious to these fundamental prerequisites? The reason generally advanced by the proponents is that accepting radicalised political outfits in the political process facilitates their mainstreaming. It is also emphasised that after all their followers are Pakistani citizens. The counter-argument is that these groups by entering mainstream politics through the front door are likely to gain respectability. This will facilitate them to expand their political base and give greater space to spread their message of sectarian hate, religious extremism and political intolerance. Being a Pakistani should not be interpreted that his conduct is above law.
Besides, should this development be viewed as a sign of dissatisfaction with major political parties? Or is it that significant segments of population have been indoctrinated by their ideology. A more pressing dilemma is how will the international community view emergence of these extremist parties especially when Pakistan is seriously aiming at rehabilitating its image. Not surprisingly, the foreign press while reporting on the NA-120 election results focused on the significant vote bank of these militant groups. We cannot afford to ignore its adverse impact on the economy and foreign investment. Already the investment climate is poor and this development could further enhance skepticism abroad. We cannot ignore the impact on our culture and heritage if these kinds of parties take root.
Moreover, how is this development compatible with the statements that Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif and other government functionaries have been making at international forums that Pakistan is on the cusp of a strategic directional change? Has any assurance been obtained from the leaders of these militant parties that participated as individuals in the by-election that they will be faithful to democratic norms and abide by the constitution. Is the establishment promoting them, as a part of a broader policy to keep pressure on India to show flexibility towards resolution of the Kashmir dispute? It has not worked in the past and unlikely to produce results in future. On the contrary it provides New Delhi fresh ground to place the blame on Pakistan.
With national elections only eight or nine months away and major political parties engaged in a bitter war of words with not much to offer to the voters nothing creates an enabling environment for these militant groups to expand their influence and vote bank.
NA-120 poll results to determine Pakistan’s fate, says Imran
On the brighter side, new vistas are opening for Pakistan with the implementation of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The Chinese are investing heavily in terms of capital, infrastructure and technology that could change the future of Pakistan. The Chinese government has committed $56 billion for CPEC and indications are they are even prepared to invest more. In addition, Pakistan is trying to attract foreign investment from Russia and European and Gulf countries for other projects and development schemes. In these circumstances we need to be more mindful of global sensitivities to the security situation if the country is to prosper.
There are innumerable critical national decisions that we have taken in our 70-year history that have later come to haunt us. Our participation in the Afghan Jihad could fall in that category. Although one could argue that while going along with the US and other allies we failed to protect our interests.
We have erred too frequently in the past by pursuing the policy of supporting militant groups for short-term gain. This has invariably led to self-defeating policies. Let us be wiser this time as there is too much at stake.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2017.