IT took merely a week for the optimism triggered by that cowardly attack on young Malala Yousufzai to go up in smoke.
The initial tide of public opinion soon started to be diluted particularly by some of our TV discussion programmes’ hosts whose passion for ‘balance’ meant they were giving more or less equal time to elected representatives and those who have no hope of ever being elected.
So, we heard from leaders of shadowy militant groups, at least one who lost dozens of fighters in a US air raid in Afghanistan on an Al Qaeda training camp a little after 9/11, as they shared a platform with legislators belonging to the treasury and opposition benches.
The stand of some religious parties, which may not openly admit it but who seem to find ideological resonance in the Taliban’s Islam, wasn’t ambiguous anyway. To what else would you attribute the use of the words “used and manipulated” for the victim?
They may have condemned the attack but in the same breath were also justifying it, albeit in slightly more nuanced terms compared to the blunt words scripted by the Taliban. Jamaat-i-Islami does contest elections but it seems is still unsure whether polls or militancy are the best route to power.
If the JI’s history in student politics is any indicator perhaps the party feels that both paths complement each other. The only problem with this strategy is that soon other contestants catch up and beat you at your own game as the MQM has demonstrated in Karachi at least.
What was a shade more troubling, though honestly speaking not surprising given their track record, was how mainstream political parties reacted to the incident. Once the ‘confusion’ started to spread their ‘resolve’ to deal with militancy also started to weaken.
The PML-N has long engaged with sectarian outfits. Whether this is mere political expediency or perhaps marks an effort to draw the sectarian parties into the mainstream isn’t clear. What is apparent is that shunning sectarian entities isn’t a matter of principle for the PML-N.
The PTI has also been unambiguous in wanting to ‘negotiate’ with the Taliban rather than seek and support any other solution. Its leader Imran Khan has often told those who question his policy: “You don’t know. I know best. I know the tribal areas better than anyone else.”
To be fair to Imran Khan, like the PML-N, he unequivocally condemned the attack on Malala. His reluctance was to name the attackers who had themselves accepted responsibility. He was also open in accepting why he didn’t wish to name and shame the Taliban and was slammed for it.
Whatever the liberal critics may say, all these parties are avowedly rightist or at best centrist so if their stance wasn’t in line with, say, my own expectations why should one be protesting, especially since the role of the ‘liberal’ parties appears no better.
It has become almost a cliché to express shock at anything the PPP does anymore. However, since it lost its beloved leader to extremists, one would have thought it would demonstrate a little more resolve — but it didn’t, hiding behind a resolution it failed to even push properly in parliament.
Instead, its focus was more on wheeling and dealing with an eye to the elections in less than six months, as Mr Manzoor Wattoo’s appointment to a key party position in Punjab showed, rather than on mobilising public opinion against the militants threatening the country’s existence as we know it.
The MQM was undoubtedly vocal but would do well to direct as much or even greater energy on bringing an end to the ongoing violence in Karachi, which is as important to the country’s future as dealing with the militant threat.
Having complained of contrived binaries that have been used in the attack aftermath, one wouldn’t wish to create a binary oneself between the shooting of Malala and an operation against the Haqqani network in North Waziristan Agency in line with US demands.
But isn’t it time that those who wield influence with the Haqqani network and see it as vital to safeguarding Pakistan’s long-term strategic interests in Afghanistan, ask the Afghan militant group to ‘discourage’ the TTP, which is primarily active against us?
Isn’t the part of North Waziristan where the TTP operates from, distinct from the one which is home to the Haqqani network? If the network’s leaders are such good friends of Pakistan why can’t they be asked to be the anvil to our army’s hammer against the TTP?
The army high command needs to establish unambiguously whether its long-held stance of ‘good and bad’ Taliban has some merit or is merely a pipe dream. This can be tested easily by asking its allies in the Afghan Taliban to help in action against the TTP.
Although the army has had to sacrifice hugely in its fight against the militants, it still appears confused as to the nature and the goals of this enemy and, therefore, is ambivalent on how to deal with it. It seeks a national consensus.
While its action against the religious extremists is conditional to a national political consensus, its presence and operations in Balochistan need no such support. In fact, it carries on despite a near consensus against it.
With elections just round the corner, it may not be surprising that political parties, either due to ideological or tactical reasons, are unable to reach a consensus on how to deal with this existential threat to Pakistan.
But it is earnestly hoped that all of us understand that the philosophy the Taliban and other religious extremists are espousing leaves no room for dissent, for free speech or respect for the will of the people.
In our inertia, do we understand this threat is gaining strength and creeping ever closer? If the answer is yes then we’ll deserve what we get.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com