It seems a bit bizarre that the US State Department should need to warn Pakistan about groups operating in its midst. In a short, but to-the-point press release, Washington has expressed concern over the appearance of Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) chief, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, at a rally in Karachi, once again affirming that the JuD is simply a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba, against which international sanctions exist. The US has also stated that Pakistan is a signatory to the UN Security Council Resolution 1267/1989, which calls for all countries to freeze assets of sanctioned groups and prevent sanctioned individuals from entering their territories.
The Jamaatud Dawa and the Difa-e-Pakistan Council — of which it forms a part — has immediately denied the US charges. But looked at from a more realistic angle, there can be no doubt that there is some truth in what was said in the US press release. Why Pakistan was unable to seek out this truth for itself and istead rely on overseas warnings regarding Hafiz Saeed is a matter of concern. The fact that we have failed to look into the threat posed by various militant groups raises many questions which need immediate answers.
It should not have been the responsibility of the US State Department to tell us that Hafiz Saeed presents a risk; or that the JuD, as a renamed version of a banned group, should never have been allowed to act in public with its leaders addressing large public rallies. The matter is really one of our commitment to tackle extremism. If that commitment does not exist, then we are in deep trouble. Pressure from abroad will never be enough to help us overcome terrorism, extremism and all the dangers that come with this evil. So far, there is no real evidence that we are willing to act to save ourselves and escape the web of militant thoughts we seem to have become tightly caught up in. As a result, the embarrassing reminders from far away pour in, leaving us looking less and less earnest about solving what is surely our problem.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ JT Well burden of proof is on them who r claiming him to be terrorist.. ok! and FYI Judiciary of PAkistan had conduced an independent trial of Hafiz Saeed sb but there were no evidence.. so its better not to call anyone terrorist or innocent solely on the ground of media propagation.. You must use your intellect before making any opinion.. Facts shown are not what is ACTUALLY happening but its what and how the media want us to show.. Think out of box!!
@Syed -- How much more proof do you want? Have you personally checked all the proof that is there against Hafeez Saeed and that other Jhangavi fellow (or for that matter a good bunch of the others on this council)? Stop throwing that god-forsaken line "who's a terrorist." It has truly passed it's sell-by date.
Who is terrorist? do u have any proof? stay out Mirza..
If unleashing of the DPC is intended to send a warning to the International community, the IQ of those deciding this strategy is shocking. That guys who are capable of killing if others do not accept their views are roaming free, holding rallies and threatening all and sundry - tells the World "we want to self destruct, do whatever you want". If course correction is delayed the country born in violence may die by it.
@numbersnumbers: I meant to say that the protectors of these terrorists who allow them to openly defy the ban and the obligations of Pakistan under International laws which Pakistan have signed. If the Pakistani establishment with over half a million troops cannot control the terrorists then the International community would. Regards, Mirza
@Mirza: Please explain how and why "These terrorists...would have to follow the International obligations"
There is no contempt of any laws here. The contempt only applies to the elected leaders of the country not the radical militants. These terrorists may not care about the Pakistani courts and constitution but they would have to follow the International obligations.