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