LAHORE - The drone attack did eliminate Hakimullah Meh-sud, but it has completely failed to weaken the government and opposition parties’ collective resolve to continue their “peace offensive” to restore normalcy to troubled areas through talks with the much-reviled TTP.
So, what Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, PTI Chairman Imran Khan and some other leaders said against the drone attack and in favour of the need for peace talks on Monday might not be liked by those who want to use military operation as the first and the only option against the militants, who are responsible for killing countless innocent people in various parts of the country. While the real objective of both sides is peace the disagreement is just over the modalities to be used to achieve it. Before trying to establish which strategy is better and why, answers to certain questions should be clear in all minds.
Are political and religio-political leaders criticising the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud because he was a religious leader and his death created some kind of vacuum? No. He was not a religious leader at all and his TTP brought a bad name to Islam through its acts.
Do they regard him as a hero because of any service rendered by him? No. He did not have any service to his credit. Did he really render any kind of service in any field? No.
In fact, they are critical of the drone attack only because of its consequences for the peace process, not for any love lost for the dead TTP leader. They say it was an assault on the government’s efforts to bring peace and tranquillity.
The contacts for talks with the TTP leaders had been started in the light of decisions taken at an all-party conference on September 9. The conference participants were of the opinion that peace should be given a chance, and in case it fails to yield the desired results military option should be used as an alternative. At no stage was the use of force ruled out.
It is fact that the Pakistan Army conducted military operations in some areas and succeeded in curbing insurgency there. Hundreds of thousands of then displaced persons are now living peacefully in their homes, which is a big achievement.
But in the light of the experience gained from the operation, the leadership has now decided to use the talks’ option first. What’s the harm in trying a new strategy to avoid more killings on both sides? Elders believe that poison should not be used where honey can bring the same results. If talks fail, the government would be justified in using all options available to it to extirpate insurgents challenging its writ.
No one should forget that the foreign troops have to leave the region one day. But the people of Pakistan have to live in their country, no matter what the situation. If the Taliban give up militancy and agree to live within the limits set by the country’s constitution, and the killings come to an end, it will be in everybody’s interest. But if killings continue even at this juncture, the post-2014 situation in Pakistan would be equally turbulent.
Pakistan is a sovereign country and has the right to take any decision and adopt any strategy to safeguard its national interests. And when the government, the opposition parties and the military leadership are on the same page – and are in favour of talks with the Taliban - nobody should oppose the idea. Also, Pakistan has the right to block Nato supplies in case the drone attacks continue.
The opponents of talks should not forget that the situation in Pakistan is not very ideal. On many an occasion the security agencies had to pay ransom to get some kidnapped people released. Normally, it is not even conceivable that security agencies would pay ransom; but this has happened in the Islamic Republic.
At present, peace is hostage with the TTP people. And it is the duty of everyone in the country to play his/her role to let peace rule supreme. Rescuing peace through talks is not a big deal.
Force doesn’t bring the desired results in all situations. When the US gave shelter to the Shah of Iran after his ouster as a result of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian students stormed into the US Embassy in Tehran. They took more than 50 American people hostage.
The US launched Operation Eagle Claw in April 1980 to have the hostages released. But the military rescue attempt failed. Later on, the US tried its best to bring Iran under pressure, but in vain. More than 50 US hostages remained in Iranian custody for 444 days till they were released as a result of mediation by Algeria. Militarily, Iran had just no comparison with the US. But it humiliated the super power for well over a year. Iran-US relations strained since then have not normalised even today, although there is a change in the thinking of the new Iranian leadership.
This example should make it clear that at times talks are a better option than the use of force. Even the success of government-Taliban talks would not improve the Taliban’s image any way. A majority of people think that the Taliban are defaming Islam, and their opinion will remain unchanged even after talks.
So, what Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, PTI Chairman Imran Khan and some other leaders said against the drone attack and in favour of the need for peace talks on Monday might not be liked by those who want to use military operation as the first and the only option against the militants, who are responsible for killing countless innocent people in various parts of the country. While the real objective of both sides is peace the disagreement is just over the modalities to be used to achieve it. Before trying to establish which strategy is better and why, answers to certain questions should be clear in all minds.
Are political and religio-political leaders criticising the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud because he was a religious leader and his death created some kind of vacuum? No. He was not a religious leader at all and his TTP brought a bad name to Islam through its acts.
Do they regard him as a hero because of any service rendered by him? No. He did not have any service to his credit. Did he really render any kind of service in any field? No.
In fact, they are critical of the drone attack only because of its consequences for the peace process, not for any love lost for the dead TTP leader. They say it was an assault on the government’s efforts to bring peace and tranquillity.
The contacts for talks with the TTP leaders had been started in the light of decisions taken at an all-party conference on September 9. The conference participants were of the opinion that peace should be given a chance, and in case it fails to yield the desired results military option should be used as an alternative. At no stage was the use of force ruled out.
It is fact that the Pakistan Army conducted military operations in some areas and succeeded in curbing insurgency there. Hundreds of thousands of then displaced persons are now living peacefully in their homes, which is a big achievement.
But in the light of the experience gained from the operation, the leadership has now decided to use the talks’ option first. What’s the harm in trying a new strategy to avoid more killings on both sides? Elders believe that poison should not be used where honey can bring the same results. If talks fail, the government would be justified in using all options available to it to extirpate insurgents challenging its writ.
No one should forget that the foreign troops have to leave the region one day. But the people of Pakistan have to live in their country, no matter what the situation. If the Taliban give up militancy and agree to live within the limits set by the country’s constitution, and the killings come to an end, it will be in everybody’s interest. But if killings continue even at this juncture, the post-2014 situation in Pakistan would be equally turbulent.
Pakistan is a sovereign country and has the right to take any decision and adopt any strategy to safeguard its national interests. And when the government, the opposition parties and the military leadership are on the same page – and are in favour of talks with the Taliban - nobody should oppose the idea. Also, Pakistan has the right to block Nato supplies in case the drone attacks continue.
The opponents of talks should not forget that the situation in Pakistan is not very ideal. On many an occasion the security agencies had to pay ransom to get some kidnapped people released. Normally, it is not even conceivable that security agencies would pay ransom; but this has happened in the Islamic Republic.
At present, peace is hostage with the TTP people. And it is the duty of everyone in the country to play his/her role to let peace rule supreme. Rescuing peace through talks is not a big deal.
Force doesn’t bring the desired results in all situations. When the US gave shelter to the Shah of Iran after his ouster as a result of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian students stormed into the US Embassy in Tehran. They took more than 50 American people hostage.
The US launched Operation Eagle Claw in April 1980 to have the hostages released. But the military rescue attempt failed. Later on, the US tried its best to bring Iran under pressure, but in vain. More than 50 US hostages remained in Iranian custody for 444 days till they were released as a result of mediation by Algeria. Militarily, Iran had just no comparison with the US. But it humiliated the super power for well over a year. Iran-US relations strained since then have not normalised even today, although there is a change in the thinking of the new Iranian leadership.
This example should make it clear that at times talks are a better option than the use of force. Even the success of government-Taliban talks would not improve the Taliban’s image any way. A majority of people think that the Taliban are defaming Islam, and their opinion will remain unchanged even after talks.
No comments:
Post a Comment