Implications of the peace agreement with TTP

Talks gained importance because Pakistan’s expectations of the Taliban govt in Afghanistan did not materialise

The cat is finally out of the bag — the conditions of the peace agreement between the Taliban and Pakistan have been made public. The talks were brokered by a 50-member jirga featuring a diverse set of leaders and parliamentarians from the erstwhile Fata districts. During these secret negotiations with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), some of the promises made violate the National Action Plan and affect the political will of the people. It seems that the entire negotiation game revolves around Afghanistan’s Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani.

The talks gained importance because Pakistan’s expectations of the Taliban government in Afghanistan did not materialise. So far, the Taliban have refused to take any punitive action against TTP’s safe havens. The Afghan Taliban expressed their inability to act against the TTP and instead stressed dialogue with them. This put the TTP in an advantageous position as they not only enjoyed safe spaces for training in Afghanistan but also kept on promoting their sleeper cells in Pakistan. The TTP benefitted from this and continued terrorist attacks against Pakistani forces and other targets. According to the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, this year alone, at least 79 people have lost their lives in nearly 46 attacks. However, Pakistan’s attempt to hit them back in their safe havens was not effective because of the Afghan government’s protests. This left Pakistan with no other alternative but to respond to the Afghan government’s offer of a peaceful settlement and pursue the peace process positively.

The TTP once again found itself in a strong position and pitched extensive demands, which included the reversal of mainstreaming of former tribal agencies and their merger with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa via the 25^th Constitutional Amendment. They also asked for a withdrawal of security forces from those areas, withdrawal of cases against its fighters, their release from captivity, and the introduction of shariah based Nizam-e-Adl in the Malakand Division. They also asked for the implementation of their brand of the Islamic justice system in erstwhile tribal agencies and immunity from the application of what they term un-Islamic provisions of the Constitution.

The peace dividend envisaged by the Pakistani authorities is the reintegration of radical fighters associated with TTP within the folds of mainstream society. In return the government wants them to announce a formal end to all terrorist activities by laying down their arms and dissolving the terrorist organisation as per the law of the land.

We need to objectively evaluate the implications of the proposed truce and peace agreement. The problem with such a scheme is that it may bring a salutary effect only in the short term. Firstly, the traditional jirga in a Pashtun social set-up is a strong body that can enforce an award given by the jirga. Of late, the institution has lost this historical ability with the emergence of jihadist organisations, especially Al Qaeda and TTP on one the hand, and political parties on the other. Therefore, the jirga may only provide a good cosmetic appearance. Secondly, the Afghan Taliban, being a guarantor, will assume a pivotal role in the politics of Pakistan and the maintenance of peace. Thirdly, the amnesty will prove a source of new energisation. They may emerge with a new name and strengthen their movement with a wave of renewed activities. Their friendly relations with the Afghan government and the absence of checks would facilitate their free movement across the border. They would utilise peace as a breathing opportunity before beginning to use physical and social spaces to train their men for future course of action. Fourthly, by holding dialogue at the state level, the banned outfits have been accepted as equals and have been accorded legitimacy. With the signing of the agreement, TTP will earn formal legitimacy leading to the removal of their members’ names from the terrorist list.

It would be a bad precedent if the Pakistan government meets their demands of withdrawal of forces from the merged districts and reversal of the merger. It would mean state surrender to a small batch of 4,000 to 6,000 armed militants. Considering that a recent United Nations report expressed a sceptical attitude towards the TTP, the peace agreement may not settle well with the international community. The report claims that militant groups have nexus with Al Qaeda and pose a persistent threat to Pakistan’s security. It warns that the prospects of success of the ongoing peace process are bleak.

From a rule of law perspective, there will be negative implications. Under the rule of law, every citizen is equal before the law and has equal protection through the law. Therefore, the due process of law must be followed and there should not be any form of discrimination. The obvious questions that many would ask is: why is the TTP given preferential treatment? Why are other citizens and organisations treated differently? Is this facility only available to religious zealots? This can further harden other militants and those with dissenting views. Considering these reasons, the pro and cons of the peace agreement should be thoroughly evaluated, and the long-term implications kept in mind. The state must not end up as a weak party while trying to establish peace under any circumstances.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 8^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.