Among the several lessons we need to learn from these episodes, one is that the establishment is fast losing control over vast areas of the country. And this loss of power and even legitimacy is not limited to just the radicals, but also obvious to the elite. The thriving of private security companies and their employment by some government officials is testament to the failure of the establishment in providing a secure environment for the country’s population. This marginalisation of the government, especially in the urban areas, means that soon people will not have a stake in its continuation, leading to a near anarchical existence of the country — as evident in Afghanistan. I need not spell out what horrors such a situation will unleash.
Secondly, recent events have clearly shown that terrorism is fast becoming an urban and an all-Pakistan phenomena. Therefore, its targeted solution has become more complex. Terrorists are increasingly targeting urban centres and many are taking refuge there. Let us not forget that even before Osama was found in Abbottabad, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was caught in Rawalpindi (the headquarters of the Pakistan Military), Ramzi bin alShibh in Karachi and Abu Zubaydah in Faisalabad — not in Pakistan’s ‘wild west’ but in the heart of its urban areas. The support terrorists now get from urban centres, in terms of residence and reconnaissance, clearly shows that they enjoy some degree of support in urban Pakistan. We are no longer talking about disgruntled Pakhtuns angry about the Americans in Afghanistan, or the poor and uneducated folk of the tribal belt who support such networks. From Quetta and Swat to Abbottabad and now Karachi, it seems that a higher literacy rate might actually translate into greater support and sophistication for terrorists.
Treating terrorism as an economic phenomenon is not going to help. Empirical research, such as the one conducted by the Social Science Research Network in the US, plainly shows that there is no real connection between poverty and support of terrorism, and, in fact, this recent study argues that poorer people in Pakistan are actually less likely to support terrorism. In light of such credible studies, why the US and UK governments, as well as the Pakistani government, keep trying to buy their way out of terrorism is incomprehensible.
The problem was and remains a political one and the sooner we realise that, the better we will be able to find strategies to deal with it. In this endeavour, firstly, Pakistan needs to redouble its efforts to try and achieve a political solution to the problems in Afghanistan. Rather than playing another version of the ‘strategic depth’ game, it needs to sever its ties with militant groups in Afghanistan (including the Afghan Taliban), and facilitate a fast and honourable withdrawal of US and Nato troops from the region. A peaceful withdrawal from Afghanistan will go a long way in placating the Afghans on both sides of the Durand Line, and might even earn their respect in the long run.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the Pakistan government needs to take control, and that means real control of its territory. The government of Pakistan really needs to take cognisance of the facts and completely revamp its security establishment. The military and security services need to come completely under civilian control and their primary objective must be to ensure law and order in the country.
Furthermore, with control of security comes responsibility. I am flabbergasted that in the wake of the Mehran airbase attack only the commodore in-charge has been replaced. What about the chief of naval staff or the interior minister? Surely the buck stops with them?
The 18th Amendment was a step in the right direction, but a lot of work still needs to be done to redress regional imbalances. We have a political government in the country for once; can we also have political (i.e. representative and accountable) action please?
Published in The Express Tribune, June 6th, 2011.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ