Supporters of army action claim that this was the only option left but this is never a viable option in such circumstances. As for the writ of the state, it is ironic that today the same people who decried using military force to exert the writ of the state are now cheering this impending debacle by the state. For instance a Lahore-based English daily (owned by the present Punjab governor) in an editorial on August 29, 2006, in the aftermath of the Bugti killing titled "Musharraf's misplaced concreteness about 'writ of the state' concluded that "if an effort to establish the writ of the state actually leads to more chaos, then surely there is something wrong with the approach behind it." Ambassador Haqqani's article in another Lahore-based English daily, on August 30, 2006, titled "Violence against Politics" made the same point on use of military force against one's own people. An earlier editorial (August 29, 2006) in the same paper wisely declared that "the writ of the state is best established by winning consent, not ramming it down people's throats by force." How quickly the US makes some of us change our perspectives! On August 28 2006 Musharraf had also given his justification for military action in Kohlu in terms of "the writ of the state".
In fact, so many of us were also focused on the "writ of the state" issue in the case of the Lal Masjid issue with demonstrations and articles; although some of us (including this scribe) did point out to Musharraf and the cabinet in early February at a JCSC meeting that timely action through normal law enforcement was needed to prevent a snowballing effect if the issue was allowed to fester. In the end, the early support for strong action dissipated in the face of revelations of the brutal way the military ended the operation. But most significant was the fallout especially in areas like Swat, but also within society at large. So public opinion alters as it receives more information but by then the damage has been done to civil-military relations. This was a sobering learning experience for many of us, but the state has not imbibed any lessons from this incident either, especially the turnaround the media did in the immediate aftermath.
Now the same history is being repeated and stories are already coming out about how the military did not give enough time for people to leave; how civilians are being killed indiscriminately (The News', 11 May, of the young girl whose whole family fell victim to an army mortar shell) and how no arrangements exist for taking people out of the military operations areas. More such stories will follow and eventually the tide support for the operation will fade away and disgruntlement will set in because the problem has simply been relocated not resolved by this military action.
We are told there were no other options. There are always other options. For instance why could the ANP or federal government not have used paramilitary forces to arrest the leaders of the "militants", charge them and try them in the anti-terror courts? Or, actually physically isolate these militants even if the army had to be involved in this action? At least it would not have resulted in the full-scale military action. But then that did not suit US interests since the Americans know the only way to get to Pakistan's nukes is to destroy the institution of the military.
The issue has been further compounded by the government not developing a national consensus through an APC before commencing the action – but doing it under US diktat just as President Zardari signed the dangerous US designed MoU on transit trade simply to save his seat – or so he seems to have perceived. As for PM Gilani's words, "finish them off" – they could have come from a military dictator. You do not "finish off" your own people, even criminals. There are terror courts and laws and due process – that is what distinguishes a state from non-state actors. The writ of the government actually is already over if the army is sent in and that is what has happened once again in our dark political history. Already the external vultures like the US are eyeing our nuclear assets as every province is being deliberately destabilised from within and a disinterested ruling elite either willy nilly or by design gives in to the negative US blueprint for Pakistan.
British religious scholars and leaders belonging to Markazi Ahle Sunnat Jamiat while rejecting the harsh Taliban brand of Sharia have announced their support to the ongoing military operation in Swat and other adjoining areas of Malakand.
Speaking at a news conference in Walthamstow, East London, last night, Pir Mazhar Hussein Gilani, Prof. Nisar Baig, Barrister Munib Qadri and others said the kind of Islam being preached by Taliban was unacceptable.
They said Islam advocate peace, harmony and brotherhood and abhors violence such as beheadings, assassination of ulemas, burning of educational institutions and preventing women from getting education.
The religious scholars said the behaviour of the Taliban in Swat has tarnished the image of Islam and that of Muslim community living in foreign lands.
They called for unity in the ranks of the Muslim community to foil the nefarious designs of Taliban and the enemies of Pakistan.
Meanwhile, a leading PPP activist Amanullah Khan in a statement has endorsed the operations to eliminate Taliban from Malakand. He paid tributes to the Pakistan Army for rendering sacrifices in the elimination of the Taliban threat.
He called on the Government to leave no stone unturned in bringing peace and tranquillity to the affected areas so that the people uprooted by the military actions are able to return to their homes as quickly as possible and resume their normal lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment