Consensus on peace: Insaf Professional Forum’s roundable kicks off

The first discussion suggested integrating change at a lingual level by avoiding certain terms.


News Desk November 22, 2013
The event was organised by Insaf Professional Forum K-P (IPF-KP). PHOTO: PTI

Members of civil society deliberated on sustainable peace in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) at a consultative session on Thursday.

The event was organised by Insaf Professional Forum K-P (IPF-KP). The conference, titled ‘Roadmap for peace building in KP and FATA’ was attended by intelligentsia, celebrities, religious scholars, representatives of minorities, peace and social activists, media persons, and professionals such as educationists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, civil servants and cultural activists among others.

In his opening address, President IPF-K-P Zafarullah Khan stressed, “The common denominator is peace, something everyone wants. Let us set aside our individual differences and search for a solution. The answer to the problem is achievable through consultation.”

Dr Hussain Shaheed Soharwardey moderated the conference.

IPF member Imran Shahzad explained IPF is interested in exploring the possibilities for a “vertically-integrated” peace building process.

During the session, participants were divided into working groups in which they explored possible ways of achieving peace.

One outcome of the brainstorming sessions was a suggestion to start change at a lingual level, a change in vocabulary in peace discourse. Terms like ‘war on terror’ were declared clichés and misleading. Participants suggested the use of indigenous terms such as jirga, ‘teega’ (literally stone; truce) and ‘daz bandi’ (ceasefire).

Based on the outcomes of this session, a larger gathering will be held on December 4 in Peshawar where a declaration will be produced.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 23rd, 2013.

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