Faustian bargain?

Published January 27, 2014

WHAT do you do when the killers say that they will kill you if you say that they are killers? Should you sell your soul to the devil? Or should you venture out saying what you think is right, knowing that it is open hunting season?

If you are an apologist, supporter or sympathiser of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), you’re not on their target list and the state tries to appease you. If you are critical of TTP-led terror, you’re marked and the state leaves you to fend for yourself. In this situation what side should a rational mind pick?

Remember Swat? Within a year or so we saw a coercive consensus transformed into a conformist consensus under the brutal Fazlullah regime. Wouldn’t you fear those who demonstrate their intent and capacity to maul fellow citizens without any qualms? When those under threat don’t resist coercion in the interest of self-preservation, a conformist consensus is born. But this doesn’t happen until the state acts as a neutral bystander twiddling its thumbs watching one set of citizens force another into submission by threat or use of force.

We have slowly degenerated to a point where the state has lost its monopoly over violence and state officials their autonomy and anonymity. Now we have general and specific terror targets, both within the state and society. The state institutions — the armed forces, intelligence and law enforcement agencies — are general targets. And then there are individuals within institutions who are specific targets either due to their sensitive posts or personal convictions.

Any citizen who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time is a legitimate general target for terrorists. Then there are specific group and individual targets: Hazaras, Shias generally, and now journalists are group targets; religious leaders who speak against the terror-driven tyrannical model of faith or anchors critical of terrorists or perceived as liberal are on individual hit lists. Political parties, of liberal persuasion, and individual leaders, vocal about their opposition to terror, have been marked as group and individual targets respectively.

Aren’t TTP sympathisers forcing officials and citizens to follow their lead and strike a Faustian bargain? If the state cannot protect you, why not seek patronage of terrorists who can hurt you at will? This could work for political parties and citizens who aren’t on target lists.

But what about those who are? What can Hazaras do to appease terrorists? What can non-journalist media staff do to save their lives? Caught in the crosshairs by virtue of their work, what should policemen and soldiers do? What should ordinary citizens do who are at the wrong place at the wrong time?

The gamble of pro-talkers is simple: so long as there is a bigger target, the lesser target is safer. The state and society is thus confronted with prisoners’ dilemma: you can be anti-TTP and a target, or a sympathiser and relatively safe. We have created this dilemma because we fail to unite on basic principles: there can be no justification ever for one set of citizens to kill fellow citizens in pursuit of any political or ideological objective; and the state can never agree to share monopoly over violence with non-state actors.

So what would Imran Khan or Chaudhry Nisar negotiate with Fazlullah? How to abide by his vision of the Sharia and ways to implement it? Would they take his counsel on how to raise their kids or be ‘better’ Muslims? Would they endorse the revisionist mission of changing world geography, invading foreign territories and forcing their denizens to embrace the TTP’s brand of faith? If support for talks is meant to be more than a personal insurance policy and thus not an end in itself, shouldn’t the object of proposed talks and non-negotiable redlines be clearly stated?

If negotiations are meant to mainstream Fata and elicit the support of tribesmen for Pakistan, its Constitution and policies, let’s talk to leaders of all tribes and not those of a terror outfit.

If local support in Fata is key to the terror conundrum, let’s propose new self-governance structures for Fata and service delivery guarantees by the state. And if the object is to separate hardened terrorists from misguided accomplices, why not propose a workable amnesty and rehabilitation scheme to those who wish to stop fighting?

Pakistan has too many soft targets: schools, mosques, bazaars, funerals, politicians, policemen, soldiers, defence installations etc. While there is no excuse for security failures, it is not possible to protect all citizens and state assets by protection alone.

The state must focus on extinguishing the threat. We need political leaders to shape the national narrative against terror. And we need the army and police to cleanse themselves of TTP sympathisers, dispel the impression that we have a capacity problem and bolster public faith in the state’s will and ability to win his war.

Our anti-terror policy must focus on minimising collateral damage. But let’s realise that there will be more bloodshed, both by the TTP and in defending Pakistanis against it. Re-establishing the writ of state over North Waziristan and other no-go areas is only one component of an anti-terror policy. The cancer has spread all over. We need surgery for the most affected parts followed by chemotherapy for the body politic. It will be no ride in the park. But this fight is for the existence of the idea of Pakistan that is worth fighting for.

The writer is a lawyer.

sattar@post.harvard.edu

Twitter: @babar_sattar

Opinion

Editorial

‘Source of terror’
Updated 29 Mar, 2024

‘Source of terror’

It is clear that going after militant groups inside Afghanistan unilaterally presents its own set of difficulties.
Chipping in
29 Mar, 2024

Chipping in

FEDERAL infrastructure development schemes are located in the provinces. Most such projects — for instance,...
Toxic emitters
29 Mar, 2024

Toxic emitters

IT is concerning to note that dozens of industries have been violating environmental laws in and around Islamabad....
Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...