Curfewed minds

Why do we always react to events after they have occurred, rather than attempting to pre-empt them? The 85 deaths in five days — including 11 which took place on October 20 as tension triggered by the shooting at a market and several other places a day before gave rise to more violence — prompted calls from some parties for the army to be called in and for the Sindh Home Department to propose a curfew in some areas of Karachi. To use a cliché, all this appears to be a classic case of bolting the stable door after the horse has fled.

This is not to suggest that nothing needs to be done. In fact, a great deal is required. But decisions taken in a state of panic do not always bring best results. The rejection by the prime minister of the ANP’s suggestion that the army be deployed is probably wise. With some signs of violence having abated there is a question mark over the need for a curfew, given the problems it would pose for ordinary people. What is needed is a strategy aimed at ensuring that a new spate of killings does not break out, and this can happen only if the culprits behind the latest ‘target’ shootings are identified. The results of the search operation in Karachi will be important in this regard.

The president’s call that there be no ‘political considerations’ in attempting to get to the bottom of the killings is also significant. We need action to be taken across the board. The failure to do this in the past has contributed to many of the problems we see. It is important the president’s advice be heeded. But for this to happen we need cooperation from all political parties. Only they can ensure that peace returns to the city and that ideas which break free of rhetoric can be put forward as a means to achieve this, rather than moving around in tight circles that prevent any real movement.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 22^nd, 2010.