The writer is Editor of The Express Tribune
However, instead of welcoming the offer, the government has remained somewhat silent. Even the otherwise very vocal Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, has said little on the offer. There is a debate, it seems, within the government on how to proceed here.
The TTP has named three people to act as guarantors to the talks. The names are quite telling. All three have welcomed their nomination but have expressed their inability to make guarantees on behalf of the government. In other words, the problem is with the government. The TTP, in their eyes, is very much on the ball.
In contrast, there has been little debate on this offer in the public domain. Most religious parties are in favour of the talks. The Tehreek-e-Insaf has distanced itself from this, possibly because the TTP does not consider it worthy of being a guarantor. To every cloud, there is a silver lining.
Most Pakistanis are confused. The government tells them of the violence that the TTP have wreaked. Many don’t believe this, saying that Muslims cannot do this to another Muslims. This is also the stance that is taken by the Jamaat-e-Islami, which says that if a truce is signed, the real face of those who are abusing the Taliban’s name would be exposed.
For the parties named by the TTP, it is a political shot in the arm, ahead of the 2013 elections. Their candidatures have been endorsed. This is most welcome for JUI-F, which has to regain its lost seats in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
As we talk of talks, the issue is larger. If we talk to the militia, we are also talking about the entry of the TTP into mainstream society and politics. Should we be welcoming this? These are questions that play heavily on our mind. Already, our society has welcomed extremist mindsets.
The government seems to have been put on the defensive with many quarters saying that by not talking to the TTP, it is not serious in its desire for peace. What is strange is that, while many were quick to attack the government, no one seems to question the motives of the TTP.
The TTP for its part has adopted a two-pronged strategy under which the militia wants to talk while at the same time, it continues to inflict damage. One day prior to their offer, the TTP had attacked security forces in Serai Naurang and Lakki Marwat, which left 13 security personnel dead. The attack followed a series of high-profile targeted operations carried out over the past few weeks. Observers say that they want to talk from a position of strength.
Others argue that the military operation has rendered the militia weak. That is why it is coming to the negotiation table. This is something that cannot be independently verified. In fact, the TTP now seems to have spread itself to as far as Karachi and many predict that the militia has grown financially and is now in the process of improving its functioning.
Should we talk to the TTP? Memories are not short. One recalls how a woman was mercilessly beaten in Swat for some misdemeanour. Do we want that to happen again?
Some say that it is not the TTP that breaks the agreement but the military. For the army, the move by the Taliban comes at a time when it is involved in a bloody, expensive and somewhat unending operation in the tribal areas. But there is reluctance to make up. What we do know is that over the past decade, the militants and different governments have made many attempts to clinch a truce. Every such effort has resulted in more bloodshed. We need to think this through.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 11th, 2013.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Sanity: (Debate is not whether we should talk to Taliban or not… it should be on what terms should we talk and with what end in sight)
Exactly my point but no one even the NS is willing to educate me.
@Sanity:
Yes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~this is the voice of thoughtful SANITY.
Fighting an insurgency involves great collateral damage. Action against our own people, our own citizens, against our own land & property , is a heavy price to pay.
The job of any army is to fight an external foe, to guard the frontiers, to care for the territorial integrity. Fighting an insurgency involves the type of internal-work which the army does not specialize in.
Lets get over the myth that the army is the solution to all our problems. The solution is a national will . Its a collective determination that counts. The nation must be behind it.
@Hasan Mehmood I respect your opinion. But is the military option alone against an invisible enemy in the absence of political process or patronage a solution to this menace? Don’t forget that battleground is our own homeland, dying innocent civilians in collateral damage are our own people, property damaged in bomb blasts belongs to us and people killed are our own kith and kin. Nobody wants space or concession to the terrorists but insurgencies are not defeated through military action alone. US gained military success against Iraqi forces but not against insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. Work out a strategy, initiate political/economic measures and back them up with a strong military might. Government agrees to terms of terrorists because they don’t have their own. Political mileage, shortsightedness and short term peace remain the core interests. Instead of only trumpeting wrongs done in the past by Army policies, here is a chance for politician to put the things right. But unfortunately, politicians and opinion makers want Army to do the dirty job without their patronage or even tacit approval. Debate is not whether we should talk to Taliban or not… it should be on what terms should we talk and with what end in sight.
There is no harm in TALKS But first think for a moment whom are you going to talk to, will they change their philosiphy ? and Talking to them would be to give them legitimacy.
Just think whom can you talk to and whom you cannot.
@Hasan Mehmood: Brilliant post. Conceptually no Muslim in Pakistani would be against sharia. IT is the practical implementation which has to be made clear to people for them to realize what a dreadful fate awaits them if they surrender to TTP - which is what negotiating at this time when they are picking targets at will - would amount to. If at all negotiations have to occur it is only after TTP are on backfoot and when they agree to negotiate within the framework of Pakistani constitution.
(If he’s narrow minded, you’re simple minded.}
Absolutely brilliant. Anyway all the recent blogs / comments have centered around the need to talk or not to talk. Lets give the TTP / their supporters / apologists benefit of doubt and assume that we do need to negotiate as military operation is presumably ineffective and counter productive.
So lets all agree to talk. The first thing the mentally retarded Rehman Malik should have asked TTP and their guarantors should have been about broad demands of TTP. Do they want 1. Abrogation of Constitution 2. Cancellation of one man / one vote 3. Replacements of Supreme / High Courts with Qazi courts 4. Banning female education beyond primary 5. Closing down Cinema Halls & TV Drama studios 6. Shutting down barber shops and CD shops etc 7. Enforcement of single sect (extreme version) rules 8. Violent public beatings and executions 9. Disallowing women to even run a bakery. 10. Banning movement of women without mehram. 11. Banning football matches in shorts and no women sports. 12. State sanctioned / condoned killing of minorities 13. Breaking diplomatic relations with USA / West 14. And so on and so forth as in Afghanistan (1996~2001)
And best of all asking for a renowned religious scholar from their ranks as almost all doable demands will concern sharia enforcement. (Stoppage of drones is not in our hands) Surely we cannot talk with the likes of Lift operator / Bus Driver / One eyed foot soldier etc concerning theological matters of far reaching implications. Believe me they wont take the bait and stand fully exposed in front of our simple minded educated people who get so easily blackmailed in the name of religion.
Dude,
It is myth to have truce with militants and it wrong in many ways. When you start negotiating with them you give them, legitimacy, acceptance as part of the state governing body, power and influence in the government. Besides, they will break all agreements whenever it is inconvenient for them. Suppose, there is no difference in the latter case with Pakistani government, they do the same
Negotiating and reaching agreement with militants is worse than doing business with the Mafia, at least Mafia has rules and as long as you by the rules you are safe.
Anyone thinking that the militancy and Taliban problem can solved with negotiations needs to get their head examined. For militants, it is way of living in luxury by getting other people to kill for them.
TTP= Tehrek-i Take-over of Pakistan ????
no any other solution other than using force..........how we can forget the recent statement by TTP.....we want negotiations with state but we'l hit MQM....arent they challenging the writ of government.............
@Sohaib Qamar: If he's narrow minded, you're simple minded.
Yar you are such a narrow minded person, with just a few facts in head & expressing them for such an issue that caused a lot of flutterance already for us. For God sake we need a sloution, we need to talk, we need an amicable settlement..