Negotiations for peace

The mainstream and social media are abuzz with stories on the ongoing negotiations with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Powerful circles are upbeat about the results of the talks. While PPP and ANP, part of the sitting coalition government, are quite skeptical and have demanded parliamentary oversight of the whole process.

Among the TTP demands are withdrawal of troops from the merged tribal areas; reversal of the merger of the tribal areas with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa; and enforcement of their version of Shariah through Nizam-e-Adl regulation in Malakand.

There are reports that a number of high-ranking militants have already been released as a gesture of goodwill. The government is also reported to have offered safe passage to TTP for entry into Pakistan from Afghanistan in exchange for the TTP agreeing to a long-term ceasefire, dissolving the militant outfit and joining mainstream politics. But, the TTP is sticking to its two major demands: substantial reduction of military in the merged districts and rollback of the 25^th constitutional amendment resulting in the merger of the tribal agencies with of K-P. However, the government is reluctant to accept these two demands.

Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah’s recent statement that a peace pact with the TTP would be within the framework of the Constitution is quite encouraging for those who want rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution to prevail. Since Pakistan is a sovereign and constitutional democracy, no militant group or individual has the right to dictate where security forces can and cannot be stationed. Similarly, an amendment to the Constitution has to done under the free will of the elected public representatives. Therefore, reversing a constitutional process on the demand of a group having a few thousand members (4,000, according to reports) will send wrong signals all across the country. As for the demand for enforcement of Shariah, it must not be forgotten that ‘The Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009’ to provide for Nifaz-e-Nizam-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi through Courts in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas under an agreement with the same elements had already been enforced in Malakand. Besides, Pakistan is an Islamic republic where no law can be passed against Quran and Sunnah. All penal laws and personal laws are in accordance with Islamic provisions.

In view of a spike in the acts of terrorism, mostly carried out against the security forces, before the ceasefire, the government was in a fix whether to go ahead with the peace talks with TTP or carry out operations against their members. Also, since the main hideouts of the militants were across the border, there were certain constraints on taking action against them, like the Afghan Taliban government not being on board. The option of talks thus appeared more feasible.

No doubt, history is full of examples of conflicts ending on the talks table. But peace at what cost or on what terms has always been the most important question. Peace with honour or with humiliation. With the federal interior minister being on record to have assured compliance with the Constitution over the talks with TTP, it is pertinent to mention here that under Article 5 of the Constitution, loyalty to the State and obedience to the law and the Constitution is a basic duty and inviolable obligation of every citizen of the country. Since waging a war against the State or indulging in sedition fall in this category, one is justified to ask whether amnesty should be offered to those who waged a war against the State and were labeled as proxies of the enemy. An answer to this is indeed not easy.

One would like to take the interior minister’s statement on face value and trust that the rule of law will prevail. No individual or organisation would be treated as above the law and pass through the due process of trial.

The State must also understand that currently they are in a strong position against the TTP as compared to the period between 2006 and 2014 when insurgency was rife to the extent that certain parts of the country were out of the state writ. Now the space for Taliban has been squeezed, and it will be difficult for them to operate in the country if a proper check is maintained. Negotiators from the government side are in a position to force the TTP to agree to abide by the law of the land.

There are, however, concerns that any truce may only bring temporary solace, proving to be counterproductive in the long run. If the past experience is any guide, the risks are quite high. Once given amnesty, the TTP men will get the much-needed legitimacy. They will thus be free to move in the country, reorganise, recruit and train; and will be in a position to garner mass support in favour of their “mission”. They would not wait too long to rise again on gaining sufficient strength.

Therefore, the State must ensure that in case of a peace pact, the TTP men are not allowed to act as an organisation or reassemble under a new name. Guarantors must also be there to take action in case of a violation.

Security forces are duty-bound to act to preserve sovereignty of the State. Presence of violent non-state actors who hold sway in some area and dictate their terms to the people comes in negation of the concept of state sovereignty. Any impression of weakness as to the sovereignty of the State must be undone. Connected to this is the concept that in a political order, State has to perform its role to ensure public order. Failure on this count may lead to a fragile statehood. The absence of effective security governance will be treated as the inability of the State to tackle the problems of transnational security.

All said and done, durable public order free from violent non-state actors is imperative for stability, progress and fulfillment of fundamental rights.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 29^th, 2022.

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