The writer is a journalist and works for Express News
For a nation caught in a war that does not seem to have an end in sight, pursuing the alternate path of engagement, domestic diplomacy and negotiations is not a bad choice. In fact, if the cost of thousands of lives and billions of rupees has not made Pakistan a stable country, this may be the only option left. However, the ‘peace option’, while a worthy cause to pursue, especially if backed by a nation-wide political consensus, needs to be seen in a realistic light. It needs to be dispassionately analysed. It must be practical, well-thought out, and, most important, should have clearly-defined goals. Mere political rhetoric, hollow idealism or electoral opportunism can cause complications as bad as the ones the country has to deal with today.
The first important test the peace option has to pass before it is put forward as national agenda for the coming years is that of ascertaining the willingness of the militants to get down to the business of negotiations. If they set-up improvised explosive devices (IED) with one hand and hold the white flag with the other hand, the process of negotiations cannot begin. What can make the militants give up terrorism as a weapon of choice in fighting the state of Pakistan is the big unknown: supposedly, and based on the literature they have produced, they want to make Pakistan a fortress of their brand of Islam. Let us assume that these claims, no matter how warped, are genuine and the militants' attacks on Pakistan's strategic assets and endless funding that they have been able to procure, are simple tactics to achieve this goal. Let us also assume that the militants are not backed by India or any other outside force. Even then, a set of initiatives has to be created to wean the militants away from their declared ambitious agenda. What is the list of incentives that peace negotiators would be carrying in their pockets to begin the process of dialogue? Preparing that list and keeping it securely away from the crass compromises like promises of blanket immunity has to be done before the table for talks is spread out.
The second test of the peace option is to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the militants or the negotiators for peace and that the state reserves the right to use force against those who continue to spread terror. Further, declaring moratorium on use of force everywhere will have to be seen against the disadvantages of aborting military operations that are in near-completion phase. Put differently, a careful balance has to be created between vital operations that cannot be abandoned and withdrawal of forces from areas that have already been cleared. Without this balance peace offers will inevitably carry the mark of the state beating a hasty retreat, sending the signal to the militants in the fray that they have won. Remember, in a battle of unequals, the weaker party carries the day by holding on, while the stronger party loses out by not making decisive headway.
The third test of the peace path has to do with the clarity of mandate with which these negotiations will begin. Finding genuine and collective militant leadership for the talks from a fragmented and atomised militancy will be a headache. Uncovering those who stand behind the TTP, remains of al-Qaeda for instance, and separating the Haqqanis and Mullah Umar from the dialogue process (presumably they are not anti-Pakistan) is a task whose successful execution would determine which way talks would go.
Attached to this test are several other factors that have to be understood to inform the current suggestions for dialogue with some sense of realism. For instance what about the fate of those who are in military and intelligence custody and are known to have committed terrible crimes like chopping off the heads of soldiers or blowing up police officials, schools and members of the FC. Or those who have been involved in carrying out attacks on core security installations at the behest of foreign powers. How does the state of Pakistan deal with these elements that have waged consistent, deliberate and intentional war against its interests? Peace and reconciliation has to be the touch-stone of any new effort at stabilizing the country, but the law of the land also has to be upheld. Releasing these prisoners and taking back charges against them will have to be done under a legal framework. This framework has to be in place before any realistic peace effort is mounted.
Most crucially, these and many other issues would remain open-ended if the military and the civilians are not on the same page of finding peace through negotiated means. The military has gone down deep on the path of force application, and like all militaries of the world, would not roll back unless the gains of the operations done are preserved. A peace pitch that does not factor in this fact would not take off the ground and would remain, at best, material for news stories. It would be interesting to see whether these intricacies become central to the debate about how best can Pakistan negotiate with the militants to restore stability. If devoid of nuances, the bid for dialogue would remain flawed. Just as use of force as a strategy to counter terrorism was never debated in any great detail before its launch, and therefore, seems to have run out of steam, peace option too can fall on stony ground if not backed by hard-nosed logic.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 14th, 2013.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@John B: common objectives of both parties is?????? Define these Objectives..???
Insightful and Thought provoking! Advocacy to the use of force alone against ideological insurgencies in the absence of a political process results in unending conflicts where innocent pay the price with lives, land stains incessantly with blood and the nation bleeds unabated. Learn from history; neither could US win against insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam nor USSR in Afghanistan. Either adopt tunnel vision and keep propagating brutality against militancy, breed terrorism, feed the terrorists’ recruitment through collateral damage or devise a comprehensive legitimate political solution. Political process with strong backing of the nation will also thwart counter narrative often radiated by political and religious parties as well as pseudo intellectuals/opinion makers for their vested interest. Military should be used as an instrument to achieve a political victory as part of a wholesome strategy.
@Rex Minor:
So for you it's only a question of surrender now or surrender later. If you've reconciled to the romantic notion that the medieval period was the apogee of Islamic bliss, and can hardly wait to revisit that era of milk and honey in this life and 72 virgins in the next, I suppose no further debate should be necessary.
There is no such thing as militants. Be kind and generous with them and they will melt away.Confront them and fight them will make you run away.
Rex Minor
@Bond: Wow, you say that "TTP is a brain child of USA"!! And of course you can provide us credible references (conspiracy bloggers not accepted) to support your assertion! I would suspect that most of us are tired of the worn-out FOREIGN HAND delusions that appear regularly to explain away all the ills that befall Pakistan.
"The military has gone down deep on the path of force application"
Absolutely false, the military never went in with full force. TTP are being openly interviewed, sending radio messages and distributing pamphlets to create terror. This is certainly not how one operates if he is on priority hit list. Also, thinking that TTP are foreign backed is utter delusion, no one is interested in forcing Shariah law and create terror in Pakistan except the extremist Mullahs.
Imran Khan got it right here. Talks are the only option for Pakistan to control militancy. It is also the peaceful option.
No point in having talks if we are still part of "WOT"
As per seeking the demands of talibans, Their primary demand is to implement the sharia Law in Pakistan, which seems to be a valid argument for Pakistan. We have got this country in the name of Islamic laws, so their implementation is the solemn goal. If we accept this thing, they would be left with no other point and hence can't be feed anymore with our blood.
TTP is a brain child of USA rather a mercenary organisation used to destabilize the countries where USA wants to destroy and compel them to come to their terms.Now the problem is this TTP has not been able to achieve the targets set by their masters and for this TTP is in hot water the funding is going to be dried up and fighting a regular army with 180 million people supporting them will cause them their extinction which is the whole problem that is compelling them to take refuge under the political parties of Pakistan.TTP hay days are over and now they are on the way to extinction because funding was the force which united them so when that vanishes they will start fight within themselves.So it should be USA who should worry to place them in some other country where they want their evil ego and supernatural agenda to be fulfilled. LETS HOPE ANOTHER UNDER DEVELOPED COUNTRY WILL BE THEIR NEXT EGO STOP.
@ Author, After reading this article I can only summerise this, Pakistan (who ever is incharge) neither knows to negotiate nor to wage war. if they knew, there would neither have been somany broken peace treaties, nor so many wars fought on daily basis.
Pakistan (who ever is incharge) neither knows WHAT IS their country nor what it should be. if they knew, there would neither be so many tribes nor would there be so little trust between yourselves.
Pakistan(who ever is incharge) should first make up there mind what they want. 65 years is too long for you people to keep every body guessing.
Please get real! Do you think you can talk to terrorists about making peace? They only understand brute force. People who cannot forgive a 15 year old Malala just because she wanted education will talk peace. Please smell the Coffee.
"Let us assume that these claims, no matter how warped, are genuine and the militants’ attacks on Pakistan’s strategic assets and the endless funding that they have been able to procure, are simple tactics to achieve this goal. Let us also assume that the militants are not backed by India or any other outside force. "
It's interesting how you smartly put these assumptions together, implying India is behind these terrorist organizations!
You can continue to live under denial and lying to your compatriots. Mind you, your compatriots of illeterates and fools and extremists will probably further your career interests for a while.
But your lies will go down the drain, just like you will along with your country, for no entity has thrived on lies.
"If they set up improvised explosive devices with one hand and hold the white flag with the other, the process of negotiations cannot begin."
Same applies to India-Pakistan peace process.Sending 10 people by boat to mumbai and talking peace, incursion in kargil and talking peace same time and ... the list goes on.
If pakistan cannot mend its ways, how can you expect TTP to mend their ways. Both are student of same school, so expect same behaviour.
Ignore the idiots, especially our stupid hateful neighbours in theses forums. The only way out is through negotiations, which will determine who can be reconciled and who will have to be eliminated. Almost all violent movements were tamed by political solutions. Period.
By agreeing to talks with the criminals (Taliban is a respectful word to describe learners) the the legal government will be making them a legitimate party to a non existent dispute. The situation very simply is that they want to take over the power and become rulers of the country just like mullah Omar in Afghanistan. Are Pakistani people ready to regress to the first millennium? If not, then forget the talks and pick up the courage to grasp the nettle of terrorism and destroy it before it destroys you. There is no soft and painless option.
One can only negotiate when the common objectives of both parties are the same.
PAK and TTP want truce not because they want peace but because they are tired of war. This is where the minds meet. However, TTP objectives are diametrically opposed to what PAK is trying to achieve. Hence, there is no solution for a fruitful compromise without sacrificing some segments of PAK to TTP.
TTP is following the same tactics of Islamic conquest of middle ages, whereas PAK is operating in 20 century (not 21 century) dogma on war.
Ideological armies are rarely won over through negotiations. Stalemate may be touted as peace but it is only a temporary fix.