So easy to hold a city hostage
The country’s actions have solely been reactionary rather than following a principled national security policy.
The writer has a master’s degree in Security and Intelligence Studies from the University of Pittsburgh. He works on the Peshawar desk of The Express Tribune
The Islamabad stand-off, which ensued for hours and hijacked TV screens, was entirely avoidable and reflected the unprofessionalism of the police force. Not only this, it reflected how the state and its institutions deal with crazies who terrorise society.
Malik Sikandar Hayat, the Jinnah Avenue gunman, made it seem so easy to hold the government hostage on August 15. And not just in some tribal village, but smack in the heart of this country — right in front of the presidency. With two assault rifles, a wife and a couple of kids in the back seat, he grew the guts to press the government to meet his demands and paralyse the city.
But this is just the baseline observation of the six-hour madness. What’s more mind-boggling is how this country dealt with the situation, which, at the same time, was reflective of our ways and efforts to deal with counterterrorism and ensure national security. It was preposterous how Senior Superintendent of Police Dr Rizwan, who was off-duty at the time, just walked up to Sikandar unarmed while he flaunted and aimed his assault rifles on him and everyone else. Equally stupid was to allow Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Zamarrud Khan to walk up to Sikandar for a meet, greet and grapple, which could have gone both ways. Zamarrud should say his prayers for not being dead.
It shows how Pakistan has been giving in to the demands of terrorists. The country’s actions have solely been reactionary rather than following a principled national security policy. Terrorism and terror-related incidents should purely be dealt by the central government. They should be made a federal offence and federal law must be enforced strictly. The key is stern and strict action; no one (man or woman) should be allowed or given the liberty to employ terror to challenge existing norms. Sikandar should be made to regret his actions.
National security interests are categorised into three domains: vital, strategic, peripheral. Terrorism and homeland security fall under vital national security issues. At the core, however, the ultimate objective of a country’s national security policy is the preservation of a nation’s way of life. This means that the state and government protect and guarantee the space and freedoms of individual citizens and ensure their right to determine how they choose to live their life exempt from internal and external pressure(s).
That space is unfortunately depleting fast and emboldening those bent on pressuring and coercing the nation to adopt a certain way of life. This new government is dragging its feet similar to the previous PPP administration under the guise of calling All-Parties Conference (APC) and forming a consensus.
Newsflash: there’s never going to be an agreement on every clause of a policy — if there is a policy — because society is polarised. It defeats the purpose of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz emerging as the largest party with a popular mandate if it keeps trying to take others on board. Consensus must be formed with leadership and within Nawaz Sharif’s national security team, not at APCs.
The pathetic response to the Islamabad stand-off will only embolden more crazies if we stick to our ways and show a lack of concern for countering terrorism. The writ of the government erodes more and more with delayed action and society becomes more susceptible to terror if softness and leniency are adopted towards militants.
Since 9/11, an international norm has been set to intervene and/or undertake unilateral action on territories where the writ of the government is minimal or non-existent. In such circumstances, the weaker state, by default, is expected by the stronger state or a coalition of the willing, to give up the notion of territorial sovereignty. This phenomenon is most prevalent in the tribal areas.
Instead of making efforts to reestablish our control, we are further giving up our rightful space inside the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2013.
Malik Sikandar Hayat, the Jinnah Avenue gunman, made it seem so easy to hold the government hostage on August 15. And not just in some tribal village, but smack in the heart of this country — right in front of the presidency. With two assault rifles, a wife and a couple of kids in the back seat, he grew the guts to press the government to meet his demands and paralyse the city.
But this is just the baseline observation of the six-hour madness. What’s more mind-boggling is how this country dealt with the situation, which, at the same time, was reflective of our ways and efforts to deal with counterterrorism and ensure national security. It was preposterous how Senior Superintendent of Police Dr Rizwan, who was off-duty at the time, just walked up to Sikandar unarmed while he flaunted and aimed his assault rifles on him and everyone else. Equally stupid was to allow Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Zamarrud Khan to walk up to Sikandar for a meet, greet and grapple, which could have gone both ways. Zamarrud should say his prayers for not being dead.
It shows how Pakistan has been giving in to the demands of terrorists. The country’s actions have solely been reactionary rather than following a principled national security policy. Terrorism and terror-related incidents should purely be dealt by the central government. They should be made a federal offence and federal law must be enforced strictly. The key is stern and strict action; no one (man or woman) should be allowed or given the liberty to employ terror to challenge existing norms. Sikandar should be made to regret his actions.
National security interests are categorised into three domains: vital, strategic, peripheral. Terrorism and homeland security fall under vital national security issues. At the core, however, the ultimate objective of a country’s national security policy is the preservation of a nation’s way of life. This means that the state and government protect and guarantee the space and freedoms of individual citizens and ensure their right to determine how they choose to live their life exempt from internal and external pressure(s).
That space is unfortunately depleting fast and emboldening those bent on pressuring and coercing the nation to adopt a certain way of life. This new government is dragging its feet similar to the previous PPP administration under the guise of calling All-Parties Conference (APC) and forming a consensus.
Newsflash: there’s never going to be an agreement on every clause of a policy — if there is a policy — because society is polarised. It defeats the purpose of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz emerging as the largest party with a popular mandate if it keeps trying to take others on board. Consensus must be formed with leadership and within Nawaz Sharif’s national security team, not at APCs.
The pathetic response to the Islamabad stand-off will only embolden more crazies if we stick to our ways and show a lack of concern for countering terrorism. The writ of the government erodes more and more with delayed action and society becomes more susceptible to terror if softness and leniency are adopted towards militants.
Since 9/11, an international norm has been set to intervene and/or undertake unilateral action on territories where the writ of the government is minimal or non-existent. In such circumstances, the weaker state, by default, is expected by the stronger state or a coalition of the willing, to give up the notion of territorial sovereignty. This phenomenon is most prevalent in the tribal areas.
Instead of making efforts to reestablish our control, we are further giving up our rightful space inside the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2013.