Daily Times Editorial April 11, 2014

The case of the exploding guavas The bomb explosion in the wholesale and fruit market on the periphery of Islamabad on Wednesday yielded a gory casualty count because of the crowded nature of the venue. At last count, 24 people were killed (some torn to shreds by the blast) and over 129 injured. The temporary distraction of the United Baloch Army’s claim of responsibility aside, the Taliban went to some lengths to deny any part in the carnage. The spokesman of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Shahidullah Shahid waxed indignant, calling it tragic that innocents were killed and that such attacks are haram (forbidden). One must say the TTP has a very developed sense of irony, since it is not exactly innocent when it comes to killing innocent people by all manner of grisly means. The attack came a day before the extended ceasefire of the TTP was to expire. On Thursday reports spoke of the Taliban leadership meeting amidst calls by some factions for renewing attacks in the face of the government’s enigmatic ‘silence’ and slow progress on the TTP’s demands. Ending the ceasefire would simply remove the fig leaf of an ostensible ceasefire in the middle of what increasingly appears to be a TTP tactic of ‘fighting while talking’. While this may have become obvious to a great many people, the government continues to insist on its talks strategy’s ‘successes’. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar is by now wholly adept at issuing hollow statements after every tragedy of this kind that the perpetrators will be brought to justice and compensation paid to the victims. One may be justified in asking; have the perpetrators of the Islamabad courts attack been apprehended? How much compensation has been paid to the victims of that attack? The interior minister is increasingly coming in for flak, not the least by the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition Syed Khursheed Shah, who has taunted the interior minister on his claim that Islamabad is a ‘safe city’. Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed on the other hand has a novel take on the event. He thinks the space for the terrorists has been squeezed by the government’s talks strategy, that is why people who would normally have been thought to be behind such incidents (the TTP, for example) are denying any role. If that thought brings comfort to the information minister and helps him sleep more soundly, good luck to him, but the rest of the citizens of Pakistan are not convinced by this line of reasoning. Denial has very much been part and parcel of the TTP’s arsenal since the talks process began. Attacks have not ceased despite the so-called ceasefire, and it is the citizens who continue to suffer from the inability of the government to see through the TTP’s ruse. As to the blast itself, it is being reported that the bomb was placed in some crates containing guavas transported from Sharaqpur. The Sheikhupura police has claimed the arrest of the goods transport company’s owner and his son, and is said to be gathering details on nine guava farms in the area (no doubt to assess their respective fruits’ sweetness). With due respect, neither the police nor the government seem to have a handle on the nature and character of the terrorism facing the country. Nor does their head-in-the-sand attitude to dealing with the terrorists inspire much confidence. Peace is desirable for all of us in this benighted land, but peace cannot be had by merely wishing for it, or beggars would ride. Even its erstwhile close ally in supporting the talks process, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf has now come out with a critique of the government’s inability to protect citizens. The task of tackling terrorism and jihadi insurgency, protecting the people and the country’s assets is inherently a difficult task. But the government’s approach of handing the initiative to the terrorists through the show of ‘ceasefires’, ‘talks’ and ‘peace’, when none of these descriptions fit the bill, has meant an inherently difficult task has been rendered all but impossible. The government would be well served by listening to the security forces’ advice on the correct strategy against the terrorists, particularly since the very effective strikes against them that made them sue for a ceasefire have demonstrated the capability of the armed and security forces to root out the problem once and for all. The restraining hand of the government must be tempered by such professional advice.

Daily Times Editorial April 10, 2014

Sibi train bombing The bombing of a passenger train at Sibi on Tuesday in which 17 people were burnt to death, including six women and four children, and 40 injured, serves to highlight the continuing tragedy of Balochistan. The United Baloch Army (UBA) claimed responsibility and warned of more such attacks, advising people not to travel by trains. The UBA says the attack was in retaliation for the major operation in Kalat district on Monday, in which the security forces claimed to have killed 40 insurgents belonging to the Baloch Republican Army (BRA) and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA). All three groups, the UBA, BRA and BLA are Baloch nationalist insurgent groups waging a guerrilla war that initially was seen as a struggle for the rights of the Baloch people, a long standing problem, but over time has seen a hardening of attitudes on all sides, including the exponential growth of separatist sentiment. A strike called by the Baloch National Front (BNF) on Tuesday saw many towns throughout the province shut down in protest at the operation, with claims by the BNF that those killed were non-combatants, including women and children. Since the media is not allowed to report freely from many areas of the province, it is difficult to assess the truth or otherwise of all these claims and counter-claims. Nevertheless, if there is even a grain of truth in the reports, it only underlines the bloody struggle simmering in Balochistan, without any end in sight. The very nature of guerrilla struggle envisages a conflict between two sides of unequal strength. The weaker force, the guerrilla force, will therefore perforce attack soft targets. These include, in the context of Balochistan, infrastructure such as railways, highways, electricity and gas lines. Inherent in some of such attacks is the possibility of collateral non-combatant casualties. Similarly, when the security forces conduct operations, there is no gainsaying the possibility of collateral damage. Ironically, President Mamnoon Hussain happened to be visiting Quetta on the day of the Sibi incident. He talked about the usual formula of exploiting Balochistan’s immense untapped mineral resources to bring prosperity and development to the most underdeveloped province of the country. This conventional approach to a complex issue misses the wood for the trees. Without a political solution to the ongoing insurgency, it is unlikely development alone will bring peace to the troubled province. The election of a ‘nationalist’ chief minister in last year’s general elections had led to hopes that Dr Abdul Malik Baloch would manage to open channels of communication with the Baloch insurgent leadership in exile and in the mountains to seek a negotiated solution to Balochistan’s long running resentment at being marginalised and deprived of its rights throughout the 66-year history of the country. However, by now it is clear that the security forces in Balochistan, led by the Frontier Corps, have their own take and approach to the problem and are not amenable to letting up on their operations to open up space for a possible political negotiation with the insurgents, which may lead to a political solution to the Balochistan conundrum. Dr Malik himself has said in interviews in recent days that the ‘development’ approach to Balochistan’s problems is unlikely to work if the examples of major projects like the Saindak copper and gold project run by the Chinese are taken into account. These projects have not yielded major benefits to the province, either in the shape of a share of the profits (the major chunk goes to the Chinese companies running such projects, while the federal government receives the bulk of the remainder) or local employment opportunities. In the light of these remarks, the potential of Gwadar port is not likely to yield very different outcomes. Recent initiatives to provide jobs to Baloch youth are unexceptionable in themselves, but they skirt the main issue, which is the simmering, and at times open resentment of the Baloch people at what they perceive is hard treatment by the state. Nationalist and even separatist sentiment cannot be crushed by force. After all Balochistan is going through its fifth insurgency since Pakistan came into being. The pattern is that insurgencies surge, attempts are made to crush them by force, the guerrillas nevertheless survive, and eventually the two sides come to some (temporary) compromise. The potential of Balochistan, its integration into the mainstream through extension of the province’s due rights, embracing the Baloch people as equal citizens of the state, reconciliation, are the way forward. Each insurgency takes a toll of the people and the security forces. A new path, a new initiative has become the inescapable necessity that history dictates. It is time for the tragedy to end.

Daily Times Editorial April 9, 2014

Army’s warning It seems that COAS General Raheel Sharif’s visit to the headquarters of the Special Services Group (SSG) at Ghazi Base in Tarbela proved uncomfortable in some respects and elicited a statement from him that has set the cat among the pigeons. General Sharif was subjected reportedly to the concerns and complaints of the officers and men at Ghazi Base about the criticism being heaped on the military by disparate quarters. In particular, since he belonged to the SSG, former commando and General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s ‘humiliation’ was of particular concern, interpreted as eroding the dignity, respect and morale of the military. The statement by General Sharif released by ISPR spoke of the challenges facing the country, notwithstanding which the army would uphold the sanctity of all institutions while preserving its own dignity and institutional pride. Forensic analysis of the statement, its meaning and import aside, basically the well known concern of the military at the ‘treatment’ being meted out to their former COAS rankles more and more. This sensitivity in the ranks is something no commander can ignore. Therefore the statement of General Sharif can be taken as a message intended to boost the under pressure morale of the army and fire a warning shot across the bows of all its ‘critics’. The unstated but perhaps equally important cause of not so hidden resentment on the part of the military as a whole is the controversial approach of the government to the Taliban. The military has acted with exemplary restraint in keeping a public posture of support to the government’s much touted peace-through-talks process. However, rumblings in the ranks are ‘visible’. Logically, two reasons suggest themselves why the current scenario troubles the military. One, the military has suffered deaths and casualties at the hands of the very people the government is treating with so much respect as to raise the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) almost to the position of an equal stakeholder in the state. This is obviously not going down well. Second, the issue of exchange of prisoners is so far a one-sided process, in which the government has released, and intends to release, Taliban prisoners in small batches after reviewing their cases. In fact the task is big, since reports speak of the TTP having submitted a list of around 800 prisoners they claim are non-combatants, including women, children and the elderly, who they claim are fit cases for release. The government has reportedly now decided to set up a committee to review all these cases in order to expedite the process. In return, despite demands, the TTP have yet to free a single hostage in their custody. While the general public and the Sindh Assembly through a resolution the other day are demanding the release of Shahbaz Taseer, Ali Gilani and Professor Ajmal, no one is talking about the military and security forces’ prisoners in the custody of the TTP and affiliated groups. It should not be forgotten that 23 Frontier Constabulary hostages were mercilessly beheaded and their heads used as footballs, a grisly scene released on video, by the Taliban not so long ago. The rest of the hostages remain at risk until and unless the TTP shows some signs of willingness to release them. In return for the concession of release of their prisoners in batches, the TTP has yet to reciprocate the gesture. The military may have reservations about this one-sided bargain, particularly since the extension the TTP granted in the ceasefire runs out tomorrow (April 10). What will follow is therefore dogged by much uncertainty, as is the general outcome of the talks. The military’s sensitivity on the criticism it says is being unduly heaped on it in recent days is on the agenda of the Corps Commanders meeting today. In a related development, two ministers of the government, Khwaja Saad Rafique and Khwaja Asif, both of whom have been in the forefront of severe criticism of Musharraf during his trial and incarceration, were at pains the other day to deny that their stance on Musharraf should be interpreted as criticism of the army as an institution. Given the delicate situation facing the country, in which the possibility of the talks failing and the need to take other measures looms overhead, the civilian and military leaderships should exercise greater restraint and care in their pronouncements to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. After all, if terrorism is to be tackled, both wheels of the state need to be pointing in the same direction.

Daily Times Editorial April 7, 2014

Afghan elections The importance of Afghanistan’s presidential election for the future of the country was never in doubt. Although the Taliban had threatened to disrupt the polls, categorising them as a ‘foreign plot’, it seems after Saturday’s vote that they failed. In the run up to election day on April 5, despite a spate of attacks against foreigners (election monitors, aid workers, journalists), they were unable to cow down the electorate from turning out. The turnout says it all: around seven million or 58 percent of the 12 million registered voters joined long lines queuing to cast their vote. Interestingly, the apprehensions that the Pashtun belt, where the Taliban are believed to have their stronghold, joined the rest of the country in what has been described as a slap in the face of the terrorists. The former Taliban ‘capital’ of Kandahar, which saw a low turnout and no women voting in the previous 2009 election, witnessed the same long lines at voting centres as in the rest of the country. Ironically, Afghan observers viewed the problem of ballot papers running out in many parts of the country, including Kabul, as a sign that more people wanted to vote than had been anticipated. The turnout and the relatively peaceful polls, with minor attacks in some provinces failing to dent the general picture, point to the historic emergence of a new political culture in the war-torn country, underlining the first democratic transition in Afghanistan’s history, a past darkened by violent and bloody changes. Security concerns led to some 959 voting centres having to be closed out of the 6,423 all over the country. There was no certainty on the eve of the polls who might emerge the winner amongst the three leading candidates: Abdullah Abdullah, Zalmai Rassoul and Ashraf Ghani. Preliminary results are expected on April 29. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the votes cast, a run off round between the two leading contenders is scheduled for late May. So although there is much to celebrate in the victory of the ballot over the bullet in this election, there is still many a slip, not the least of which could be rigging and fraud allegations that marred the 2009 presidential election and dented its credibility. Whoever the new incumbent in the presidential palace turns out to be after this relatively protracted process, he will face considerable challenges. For one, he will be faced almost immediately after taking office to deal with the stalled Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that outgoing President Hamid Karzai refused to sign despite it being endorsed by a Loya Jirga convened by Karzai himself. Relations between Karzai and the US have reached an all time low, dealing the critical BSA a deadly blow, The importance of the BSA lies in its terms allowing some residual presence of western troops in a training and support role. The fate of the BSA could also impinge on military and economic aid to Afghanistan, without which the country could struggle. Although the 400,000 personnel of the Afghan army, police and intelligence services deployed on election day to provide security came through with relatively flying colours, the drying up of western military and economic assistance could exacerbate the difficulties of the new president, even more so after the western troops withdraw in bulk by the end of 2014. The Taliban may be expected to ratchet up their challenge to the post-election, post-withdrawal dispensation, and any failure to receive western aid could redound in their favour. Needless to say, if any lessons have been learnt from the experience of the west more or less abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, they are that the peace of the country, region and the world critically depends on supporting the country through this critical transition over the next few years, until such time as the country is able to stand on its own feet. Pakistan’s interest lies not in once again trying to ‘conquer’ Afghanistan through jihadi proxies, but supporting our neighbour in its quest for peace and development, not the least because enlightened self-interest suggests both peace and war in Afghanistan inevitably impact Pakistan too.

Daily Times Editorial April 6, 2014

TTP conundrum Talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) increasingly seem to be heading for a dark and narrow alley without light at the other end. Perhaps that is why Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, speaking at the death anniversary of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on Friday accused the government of the PML-N at the Centre of pushing the country back into the dark ages by pursuing these talks. Or perhaps what he meant was the possible outcome of the talks, if it favours the Taliban, would be a ‘dark’ time ahead. Bilawal also criticized the Punjab government for allegedly sheltering terrorists in the province. As far as the PPP’s ‘home’ province of Sindh is concerned, he made reference to the recent spate of attacks on and the demolition of Hindu temples in a land famed for its tolerance by saying he and his party would not remain silent on the issue. While Bilawal was railing against the PML-N government’s approach to the terrorists, reports increasingly speak of the unhappiness of the armed forces at the policy of seeking peace through negotiations with the fanatical TTP, with special reference to the release of 19 ‘non-combatant’ Taliban prisoners. The objection appears to centre round the ‘unilateral’ nature of the release, without reciprocity from the TTP of releasing civilian and security forces’ personnel being held by them. In the top level meetings on Friday, reports say the concern of the armed forces has been conveyed to the civilian leadership. Given the one-to-one meetings with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of not only COAS General Raheel Sharif but also Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Tahir Rafiq Butt on Friday, the indications are that it is not only the army that has reservations about the course the government is embarked upon, but the air force too, which is credited with changing the mind of the TTP about merrily going on conducting attacks and killing prisoners in their custody after the air force struck their bases and compelled them to announce a ceasefire. For one, the definition of ‘non-combatant’ has been questioned. It may be recalled the interior ministry has classified the 19 prisoners released as ‘petty criminals’, not involved in terrorism or militant actions. However, it is being argued by knowledgeable analysts that those who help, facilitate, act as logistics mules or the eyes and ears of the terrorists cannot be called non-combatants without stretching the meaning of the term to absurdity. The second concern is that those released, and those about whom release is being contemplated (a far larger number from all accounts), need to be monitored after being freed to ensure they do not go back and join the ranks of the terrorists. Whether the intelligence and security forces have the capability and capacity to do this in the midst of the myriad tasks the situation in the country demands against terrorism is open to question. What would be unacceptable is if some time down the road, it was discovered that those released strengthened the hands of the terrorists. Third, the question of reciprocity rankles, since both civilian and security forces’ hostages in the hands of the Taliban have yet to see freedom. All the TTP has to offer is the extension of the ceasefire that expired on March 31 to April 10. We should bow our heads in gratitude to the TTP for this ‘generosity’ while we await with bated breath what may follow if the ceasefire is not extended beyond the latest deadline. The Taliban demands for the release of about 800 people claimed to be non-combatants and the free zone in FATA cannot be met, and the former, even if a review reveals certain individuals fit to be released, cannot be met in the few days remaining. The uncertainty looming over the process of negotiations with the TTP is in sharp contrast with the ‘exuberant’ optimism of the government and Taliban sympathizers in the negotiation committees. It would be best to be prepared in case the process unravels and other options have to be resorted to, including the ultimate option of the use of force. The country, the government, the armed forces cannot allow themselves to be caught napping.

Daily Times Editorial April 5, 2014

The right and left hand Reports on Thursday that the government has released 19 non-combatant prisoners produced some unnecessary confusion. The confusion owed more to lack of coordination and communication between branches of the government than anything else. Eventually the confusion was sorted out, but it left a strange taste in the mouth. Initial media reports presented the release as having been ordered by the prime minister (PM) as part of efforts to keep the peace process going. Since the PM’s Secretariat knew nothing about any such release, it initially denied the PM had issued any such orders. It would have been better if the Secretariat had first checked with the interior ministry, whose purview the peace talks and the security situation is, before rushing to the media with a denial. The interior ministry then responded to the denial by issuing a statement clarifying that 19 non-combatants in custody belonging to the Mehsud tribe had indeed been released by it since they were cleared of any involvement in militancy or terrorism. The detainees, according to the ministry’s statement, had been released in three batches, three on March 21, five on March 25, and 11 more on March 28. In addition, reports spoke of the impending release of another 100 such detainees. It took a meeting between the PM and Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali, if reports are to be believed, to clarify the fog. The whole brouhaha can be rightly ascribed to the right hand of the government not knowing what the left hand was up to. Given the sensitivity of the talks process, and how delicately it is poised after the month long ceasefire by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has ended, it would serve the purposes of the government better if such pronouncements were carefully handled to avoid this kind of unnecessary controversy. One of the compelling reasons also for being careful in this regard is that parts of the media cast the affair in the hues of the PM overruling the advice of the military that prisoners should not be released, especially those responsible for the deaths of military officers and soldiers. Such reports unnecessarily put the government on the back foot, from where it has then to try and manage the fallout of a perception gained that the military still calls the shots on the matter of dealing with the militants. The facts belie such speculation. From all accounts, the military is fully on board as far as the government’s moves are concerned, and is willing to see if the government’s strategy of peace through talks can succeed, while at the same time keeping its powder dry in case it does not. The military may have offered firm advice against the ‘free zone’ in South Waziristan demanded by the TTP and rejected the release of combatants, but this hardly constitutes a difference of opinion or a civil-military divide on the issue. The gesture of releasing some non-combatants and contemplating the release of more is a move to generate goodwill and reciprocity from the TTP. So far, of course, despite lip service to the reciprocal release of non-combatants such as Shahbaz Taseer, Ali Haider Gillani and Professor Ajmal, in the custody of the TTP or affiliated groups, no such conciliatory gesture has been forthcoming from the TTP. Perhaps patience is the watchword for what is intrinsically a most sensitive affair and rush to judgment should be avoided. A protracted process rather than sudden gains is what we are perhaps undergoing. If the resolutions of the Central Executive Committee of the PPP, meeting on the eve of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s death anniversary in Garhi Khuda Buksh are taken note of, they assert, inter alia, that no extra-constitutional solution to the problem of terrorism would be acceptable. They also demand that the government take all the political parties into confidence on the peace process. This is a justified demand and would also help the government if its moves enjoy the support and confidence of the political class as a whole. Ironically, the PPP wants the government to ensure the release of the three non-combatant prisoners mentioned above, now that the shoe is on the other foot. It should be recalled that the PPP could not make much headway in this regard while it was in power. Nevertheless, the best approach to the talks/peace process is to wish it well without putting all one’s eggs in that basket.

Daily Times Editorial April 4, 2014

The Musharraf conundrum Former Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and president Pervez Musharraf’s case has become a hot potato for all concerned. After the Special Court trying him on treason charges passed the buck for the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL) to the executive, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif consulted his senior ministers and the armed forces on the issue. Reports say most PML-N ministers appeared to be against letting Musharraf fly to the Gulf to attend to his ailing mother, fearing the government would lay itself open to charges of a ‘deal’. Certainly if Khwaja Asif and Khwaja Saad Rafique’s public take on the matter is referred to, it would appear as though the government speaks with one voice in rejecting Musharraf’s request. However, appearances can sometimes be deceptive. ‘Deals’ are the staple of Pakistan’s political menu, especially if the mother of all deals to allow Nawaz Sharif to go into exile in Saudi Arabia after he had been convicted by a kangaroo court is kept in mind. If Musharraf’s expectation was that the government, and particularly the prime minister, would return the favour, he would be disappointed by the interior ministry’s rejection of his request, citing serious cases ongoing against him in the courts. It appears by now that both the executive and the judiciary are reluctant to grasp the nettle, preferring to play ‘football’ or ‘ping-pong’ with the difficult decision by throwing the ball into each other’s court. Reports say Musharraf’s legal team would now approach the Supreme Court (SC) and possibly the Sindh High Court on the issue. Meantime habitual petitioner Shahid Orakzai has been his usual quick-off-the-mark self by moving the SC against any attempt to let a treason accused leave the country. Reports and speculations regarding the intervention of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in the conundrum point to our Arab friends’ inordinate influence on Pakistan’s internal affairs, as well as the clout they enjoy with the present (and past) dispensations. The sum total of these speculations, flying in the face of the general run of reportage and opinion that Musharraf may not be allowed to leave and have to face the music, is that Pakistan will ultimately bend to these external actors’ desire to see Musharraf go. The only basis for such a move would be humanitarian considerations regarding his ailing mother, with the possibility of a presidential pardon thrown in if the judiciary refuses to play ball. Perceptive observers regard the indictment of a former military dictator on treason charges for the first time in Pakistan’s military interventions-afflicted history as no less than a historic development. However, extreme scepticism follows whether the matter will go any further than the moral victory over the once all-powerful dictator and the message it sends from a transforming Pakistan to future military adventurers. It should not be forgotten that the resignation of General Jahangir Karamat as COAS under the last Nawaz Sharif government may well have produced the reaction from the armed forces when the next COAS, Musharraf, was dismissed by the prime minister. It is needless to point to what followed: a military coup that followed the pattern of a shelf life of almost 10 years, the track record benchmark for military dispensations in our history. The military, unhappy reportedly at Musharraf’s insistence on returning to the country despite his parent institution’s advice to stay away, nevertheless might find it difficult to swallow the further humiliation of its former chief, including the prospect, if the trial is allowed to run its course, of a possible death sentence or life imprisonment. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif would surely not be unmindful of the lessons learnt from his last attempt/s to assert civilian supremacy over the armed forces. This time round, a more pragmatic assessment of the limits of civilian assertion may be the underlying wisdom informing his actions. The collateral advantage for Nawaz Sharif would be that he would emerge from the bruising episode in the colours of a reformed statesman keeping the interests of the country uppermost, rather than a vindictive politician bent upon burying the ghosts of the past.