Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
The tough task of defining the adversary
SADIA QASIM SHAH
PESHAWAR, Oct 29: ‘Who are the Taliban,’ asked a politician during his very first briefing on militancy.
The politician, who had been vehemently propagating peace talks with the Taliban, was confused when informed that there was not one but many groups of the Taliban.
Before embarking on peace negotiations, the tough task for the PML-N government is to define first the adversary they want to engage, political analysts say.
It has been more than a month since the All Parties Conference was held.
The political parties gave the government the mandate to hold negotiations. Until now, there are reports of ‘initial contacts’ with the Taliban, the main factors of talks vis-à-vis with whom (group), by whom and where is still not known.The use of different nomenclatures through years is a manifestation of this confusion.
The question is whether the adversary is just religious students wanting reforms in the government (Taliban), freedom fighters waging a struggle against foreign forces (Afghan Taliban), a group wanting to end American domination of the world by all means (Al-Qaeda), or terrorists, militants, fascists, criminals, gangsters, misguided folks or stakeholders, a unique term used in the APC document.
A clear definition of an adversary helps identify one’s own goals in any negotiations, political analysts say, who insist the government seems to be lacking clarity on the issue.
“There is a lot of confusion. In fact how the discourse is structured is wrong,” says Senator Afrasiab Khattak, who as a senior leader of Awami National Party held peace talks on the behalf of government with the Taliban in Swat valley in 2008. In Senator Khattak’s opinion, the government should be clear and show whether it has strong resolve to eliminate militancy or just wanted to appease. He warns the government should be careful as talks should not mean stooping low to the level of terrorists.
There is also no clarity when it comes to defining who would be on the other side of the table during peace talks.
JUI-F leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman was also quoted by media as saying the government must confirm first which Taliban group it needs to talk to and at what forum.
Since there are so many groups within the Taliban, it, analysts say, will be a difficult task for the government to engage one powerful group for talks who could influence all militant outfits to agree to a solution.
The Taliban are divided in different groups as they are spread all across seven tribal agencies and six Frontier Regions of Fata and even major cities of the country. However, the political parties, who may have agreed in All Parties Conference to hold talks to resolve the lingering issue of peace, also are divided on how to move forward.
How would the centre and government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the ruling coalition consisting of four political parties and opposition come to one decision when it would come to launching a military operation if talks fail. This is another point to ponder. The PTI has been shifting all responsibility on the federal government since it came to power and has already started nagging the federal government for showing laziness in holding peace talks.
The only political government, which held peace talks was previous coalition government of the Pakistan People’s Party and Awami National Party, which were allies and on the same page because they were ruling the federal as well as the provincial governments when the peace deal was brokered with the Taliban of Swat. Even that deal didn’t work and it was a military operation, which dispersed militants helping the government reclaim its writ in Malakand division.
“We had our traditions, which helped us hold talks. We held talks according to that way and proved militants wrong. They became social outcasts,” feels Senator Khattak, who emphasises holding talks should not mean losing space and authority to terrorists.
How many of the political parties have effective representation in the tribal areas is also a big question mark. The ruling PML-N is a political party, which has a strong base in Punjab but for it, tribal areas are just a periphery, which is dispensable, political analysts say.
“PML-N has not shown any keenness to resolve the issues of Fata since they came to power,” said Senator Khattak.
Shahabuddin, PML-N MNA from Bajaur Agency, did not take calls and so did other MNAs from the area, including Ghalib Khan Wazir and Syed Wali Shah.
While the government has yet to specify which Taliban, the good or the bad, they want to engage for peace talks, militants have been growing not only in their size and influence but have franchised militancy to grassroots levels. Extortionists, kidnappers and rogues have joined them or linked their groups to militants for power and money. Their presence can be felt very much in Peshawar. In the capital city’s posh Hayatabad Township, where mostly retired government officials live and there is presence of Frontier Corps, militants had been raising funds in mosques. No one from among the faithful can dare stand up and differ with them.
Brig (r) Mehmood Shah, who had been home secretary, is not very optimistic about the desired outcome of the proposed peace talks.
“If the government fails to establish its writ through peace talks, any other option to resolve the issue would have public support,” he insists.
Like termite, as it was mentioned in an official document, militants had been making the system hollow from within continuously.
Whether military operation or peace talks, the militants have an edge over the government. The militants have nothing to lose in this win-win situation, where their adversary is more divided, lacks clarity and a narrative/strategy to counter them.
SADIA QASIM SHAH
PESHAWAR, Oct 29: ‘Who are the Taliban,’ asked a politician during his very first briefing on militancy.
The politician, who had been vehemently propagating peace talks with the Taliban, was confused when informed that there was not one but many groups of the Taliban.
Before embarking on peace negotiations, the tough task for the PML-N government is to define first the adversary they want to engage, political analysts say.
It has been more than a month since the All Parties Conference was held.
The political parties gave the government the mandate to hold negotiations. Until now, there are reports of ‘initial contacts’ with the Taliban, the main factors of talks vis-à-vis with whom (group), by whom and where is still not known.The use of different nomenclatures through years is a manifestation of this confusion.
The question is whether the adversary is just religious students wanting reforms in the government (Taliban), freedom fighters waging a struggle against foreign forces (Afghan Taliban), a group wanting to end American domination of the world by all means (Al-Qaeda), or terrorists, militants, fascists, criminals, gangsters, misguided folks or stakeholders, a unique term used in the APC document.
A clear definition of an adversary helps identify one’s own goals in any negotiations, political analysts say, who insist the government seems to be lacking clarity on the issue.
“There is a lot of confusion. In fact how the discourse is structured is wrong,” says Senator Afrasiab Khattak, who as a senior leader of Awami National Party held peace talks on the behalf of government with the Taliban in Swat valley in 2008. In Senator Khattak’s opinion, the government should be clear and show whether it has strong resolve to eliminate militancy or just wanted to appease. He warns the government should be careful as talks should not mean stooping low to the level of terrorists.
There is also no clarity when it comes to defining who would be on the other side of the table during peace talks.
JUI-F leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman was also quoted by media as saying the government must confirm first which Taliban group it needs to talk to and at what forum.
Since there are so many groups within the Taliban, it, analysts say, will be a difficult task for the government to engage one powerful group for talks who could influence all militant outfits to agree to a solution.
The Taliban are divided in different groups as they are spread all across seven tribal agencies and six Frontier Regions of Fata and even major cities of the country. However, the political parties, who may have agreed in All Parties Conference to hold talks to resolve the lingering issue of peace, also are divided on how to move forward.
How would the centre and government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the ruling coalition consisting of four political parties and opposition come to one decision when it would come to launching a military operation if talks fail. This is another point to ponder. The PTI has been shifting all responsibility on the federal government since it came to power and has already started nagging the federal government for showing laziness in holding peace talks.
The only political government, which held peace talks was previous coalition government of the Pakistan People’s Party and Awami National Party, which were allies and on the same page because they were ruling the federal as well as the provincial governments when the peace deal was brokered with the Taliban of Swat. Even that deal didn’t work and it was a military operation, which dispersed militants helping the government reclaim its writ in Malakand division.
“We had our traditions, which helped us hold talks. We held talks according to that way and proved militants wrong. They became social outcasts,” feels Senator Khattak, who emphasises holding talks should not mean losing space and authority to terrorists.
How many of the political parties have effective representation in the tribal areas is also a big question mark. The ruling PML-N is a political party, which has a strong base in Punjab but for it, tribal areas are just a periphery, which is dispensable, political analysts say.
“PML-N has not shown any keenness to resolve the issues of Fata since they came to power,” said Senator Khattak.
Shahabuddin, PML-N MNA from Bajaur Agency, did not take calls and so did other MNAs from the area, including Ghalib Khan Wazir and Syed Wali Shah.
While the government has yet to specify which Taliban, the good or the bad, they want to engage for peace talks, militants have been growing not only in their size and influence but have franchised militancy to grassroots levels. Extortionists, kidnappers and rogues have joined them or linked their groups to militants for power and money. Their presence can be felt very much in Peshawar. In the capital city’s posh Hayatabad Township, where mostly retired government officials live and there is presence of Frontier Corps, militants had been raising funds in mosques. No one from among the faithful can dare stand up and differ with them.
Brig (r) Mehmood Shah, who had been home secretary, is not very optimistic about the desired outcome of the proposed peace talks.
“If the government fails to establish its writ through peace talks, any other option to resolve the issue would have public support,” he insists.
Like termite, as it was mentioned in an official document, militants had been making the system hollow from within continuously.
Whether military operation or peace talks, the militants have an edge over the government. The militants have nothing to lose in this win-win situation, where their adversary is more divided, lacks clarity and a narrative/strategy to counter them.
