Defining terrorism

Strict definition of what is terrorism must be set, adhered to, otherwise we are inviting more abuse by those in power

The Constitution has been amended; Raza Rabbani cried in protest, but voted all the same. Fazlur Rahman objected, yet the bill was still passed. We now have military courts because our conventional courts failed and where they did not, the government did not find the courage to execute the sentences. It took over 141 lives to bring this reality home. What now? We are led to believe that only terrorists will be tried in military courts. Does this mean that Pervez Musharraf will face this court for his act of terrorism in attacking the Lal Masjid or does Maulana Aziz stand trial for threatening the civil public and challenging his non bailable arrest? What about the man who murdered the governor of Lahore and, in turn, those who attacked a peaceful vigil outside the Governor’s House in his memory? A strict definition of what constitutes terrorism must be set and adhered to, otherwise we are just inviting more abuse by those in power.

It is not even clear who will be held accountable for the Peshawar attack. Is the civil authority or the army responsible for the security of Peshawar? Were there intelligence failures and was there internal collusion? Neither have these been investigated, nor is there any visibility on the matter. The public, the only stakeholder in this tragedy, is being kept in the dark and accountability is being woefully ignored.

Even though military courts are the need of the hour and have been for some time, they are certainly not a permanent solution. For instance, most terrorist attacks in Pakistan are carried out by suicidal maniacs. Will these terrorists be tried posthumously? Such a ruling in military courts would merely be symbolic and only give the appearance that the authorities are taking real action. Military proceedings are an incomplete solution in that the trial always follows the event. What is being done to stop the next event before more lives are unnecessarily lost? Those who were and still are responsible should not be allowed to continue the practices which made the Peshawar attack possible. Military courts have added to the ability to resolve a case after the event; now the focus must shift to preventing new tragedies before they occur.

This is more easily said than done, however, since the government is duplicitous in many cases of violence. The Model Town incident where several protestors were killed by police gunfire is one example and the shooting at Gujranwala during Imran Khan’s jalsa is another. The ex-Punjab law minister has ties with terrorists groups such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). Malik Ishaq, the LeJ leader, was actually provided with financial assistance from the Punjab government while he was in prison. the Jamaat-e-Islami also has connections to terrorists. Its previous leader had the nerve to declare militants killed in military operations as martyrs. Meanwhile, the JUI-F is linked to the Taliban, and some black sheep amongst our security agencies are known to be associated with extremist groups. The general public has been increasingly abandoned by the government of Pakistan and is too often left with no other option but to rely upon Amn committees and panchayats for justice. Rhetoric from officials must be put on hold and their broad malfeasance needs to end altogether, otherwise, they should face the fact that they are accomplices to future acts of violence.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 12^th,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.