Why Imran is right

Education and an iron hand appear to be solutions against extremism but government must display credibility.


Osama Akram October 26, 2012

Though I am a staunch opponent of drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas, I must admit my enthusiasm for Imran Khan’s rally in Waziristan did die down considerably when I learnt of the attack on Malala Yousufzai. It was disturbing to the point of being physically painful. Any Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporter would have killed whoever pulled the trigger on the young girl with their own bare hands; at least that is what my sample tells me.

However, a day goes by and I begin to indulge in conspiracy theories: why this timing just when the PTI’s Waziristan march was making headlines the world over; why did Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar predictably jump at the assertion that this outrage had the potential of becoming a “turning point” for Pakistan?

Another day goes by and I rid myself of these theories. Also, by this point, I have read more than a truckload of reactionary articles in the media. Fuming mouths and rhetoric disguised as incisive rationale are the order of the day. Where is the non-reactionary thinker? Weren’t the Taliban already blowing up schools and killing innocent girls? Is it a development that has provided the ‘liberals’ enough meat to declare that they have been vindicated in their explanations of how Imran is wrong? I totally understand the pain and shock, however, some opinion-makers seem to feed on hate and self-righteousness as opposed to rationale.

It would perhaps, amount to something akin to blasphemy, but I want to use this sensitive moment to reiterate the view that negotiation with the Taliban at some level might be necessary to end this all. Those opposing negotiations with them might as well gauge their unwavering principles when it comes to negotiating with the US. Is not the US responsible for at least comparable number of innocent deaths? Whether the government has officially allowed the drone attacks or not, the fact that the attacks are being carried out without any resistance from our part, represents negotiations with the US, direct or indirect.

While it might make sense to some in our government to bow before a superpower, isn’t the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or militants in general a force to be reckoned with also? If we agree that pragmatism has to be a part of our internal and foreign policies, do the over-30,000 civilian deaths not hint towards the presence of a formidable foe? Now, that the superpower is not disagreeable to the idea of negotiations with the Taliban, why must we risk a bloodbath, be it a suicide attack or an armed attack?

Negotiations, if well-directed, could set in motion a slow process towards peace in the region, which could extend beyond the region once the onus is on the Western powers to resolve the issues that serve as fuel for militancy. Opponents of negotiations will point to the number of times dialogues with militants have failed; that is some ‘weighty’ argument for a policy that has resulted in over 30,000 civilian deaths. If this really is our war, the least we can do is separate it from the US foreign policy; and we can only achieve this if there is an end to drone strikes and when we establish a stand on the presence of Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The rising extremism is indeed our problem and needs to be dealt with. Education, and at times, an iron hand appear to be the solutions; however, to use the latter option, the government must display credibility and work for lasting peace in the region by coordinating peace activities.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2012.

COMMENTS (51)

KT | 11 years ago | Reply

A radical but peaceful solution may not be simple. All regions that wish to be a part of Pakistan need to show loyalty to the country. This is according to the principles of Islam itself which tells Muslims to adhere to laws of the land. If FATA does not want to agree to this, I suggest that the government of Pakistan must seal the territory facing KP and ask residents to obtain visas to visit Pakistan. If FATA agrees to this, then this colonial non-sense of FATA should immediately be abolished and the tribals be integrated into the country fully like all other domiciles and they must respect the law of the land. They should not be allowed to have it both ways, i.e., be the citizens of the country and also wreak havoc if they disagree with other citizens or the government.

Pakistan is for Pakistanis and those who do not wish it well can and should be allowed to leave it. Even if that means giving up territory then so be it. Countries are made of citizens as well, not just territories.

Future_of_Pak | 11 years ago | Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PTI goal to establish political dialogue with the various tribes, elders, communities etc of the Pashtun people (~200 - 300k population) that occupy the tribal areas, and try to win them back to our side?

I'm not so sure they're wanting to go and talk to the Taliban. The idea is more to isolate the Taliban. At that point, I'm not sure what the PTI policy is. Mine would be to go hard at the isolated groups and eliminate.

I'm not sure what PTI wants to do if they successfully win the hearts and minds of the Pasthun tribes in that region.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ