The flawed Swat deal By Gul Bukhari
Thursday, 02 Apr
THE Swat situation has yet again reached animpasse with Sufi Mohammad, the leader of the Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi(TNSM), instituting qazi courts outside the existing legal framework and appointing qazis at his own discretion. But the government insists that the legal framework consisting of the present infrastructure and judges should be used for issuing Sharia-compliant decisions.
Some weeks ago, the Awami National Party-led government in the NWFP had negotiated a peace deal with Sufi Mohammad, offering to implement Sharia in the Swat and Malakand Divisions. In return, the government wanted the TNSM head to persuade the head of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan,Maulana Fazlullah, the Swat-based compatriot of Baitullah Mehsud, to cease militancy.
This turn of events is not surprising it was likely from day one. When the government negotiated the said deal with theTaliban of Swat through the TNSM, it was evident that it was doing so from aposition of weakness and under duress.
There is enough evidence to indicate that the negotiators from the governments side had only intended cosmetic changes such as renaming the existing courts as qazi courts. Whether they thought they would succeed in duping the Taliban, or whether they meant to fool the publicinto thinking that they were great strategists and would achieve peace with out giving anything away is anyones guess.
Much more likely is that they knew they wouldnt bamboozle anyone in the end, but were just brushing the problem under the carpet and buying time.
That would be a fine tactic, were there acomprehensive plan to be put into action after the expiry of time thus bought.Unfortunately, that was not the case; there was no plan and the Zardari-led government continues to muddle through, believing that different speeches containing contradictory claims meant for different audiences would continue to push the explosion of the time bomb indefinitely into the future. If only life was that simple.
The very basis of any negotiations with an armed movement is flawed. The state ceding the rights of a section of the population and leaving them defenceless against the terror and oppression offreelance fascists, used to be seen as cowardice, and not the attainment of peace. If anyone doubts that tomorrow the rest of the country will not be held hostage to the same terror that the Swatis live under, he/she is living in afools paradise. Either that or such people already have plans in place to leave the sinking ship when the time comes.
To begin with, how are the TTP or TNSM thelegitimate representatives of the Swatis or the people of any other area? If itis a question of gun-power then the government must immediately admit that itis bowing to their might, not the extent of their representativeness. If, on theother hand, it is claimed that the majority of the Swati people want what theTTP demands, then lets have proof of it.
Invite the TTP (or for that matter anyother champion of faith) to form a political party with a published manifestoand contest elections. That should put to rest for the next few years at least the question as to whether or not it represents popular sentiment, albeit of aregion or province. If it does, a political way forward should not be unachievable.
But if it does not, then at least we wouldbe able to come clean about whether we are disenfranchising an entire sectionof the population by imposing an undefined penal code on them or simplysurrendering to armed criminals and leaving the people of Swat to fend forthemselves against oppression of the worst kind.
Its very important to be cognisant of the fact that Sharia, for all practical purposes, is not a defined penal code. No two opinions within Pakistan on the practical ramifications of implementing Sharia are the same. Even proponents of the peace deal denounce the models in place in Saudi Arabia, Iran and previously in Afghanistan.
In the absence of any existing model, such proponents advocate real Sharia interpretations of which there are as many as the individuals propounding them. It remains a nebulous idea of utopia on earth. How can the imposition of an amorphous ideal, with no commondenominators for the countless opinions on it, be a solution?
Let the proponents define Sharia, build aconsensus of what it might entail into a detailed penal code and then take avote on it.
Its time for intellectual honesty we must call for the TTP, or any other movement that claims to speak on behalf of the people, to enter the political franchise and contest elections. This must be considered as a serious option.
Either they will demonstrate a constituency and emerge as a legitimate political entity to be negotiated with, or they will not.
In the latter case, if peace deals with them continue to be pursued, atleast it would be morally more courageous to admit to caving in to terrorists than to keep pretending that they are representatives of the popular will.
