karachi: We have an unmatched instinct for farce especially when we adopt our most grave and serious postures. Another all-parties conference; a dash to Kabul; a rage of hangings; a 20-point National Action Plan (NAP) to succeed the still-born National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) and National Internal Security Policy (NISP); a committee for every point of the NAP; subcommittees for every committee; an overall oversight committee led by the Prime Minister who proclaims zero tolerance; a defining moment; a do-or-die challenge; an unending jihad against jihadis; eternal cooperation with the military which is invited to discharge his responsibilities; military courts of dubious value and still more dubious constitutionality; warrants of arrest against facilitated “fararis” (absconders), etc.
“Democratic” political leaders who until recently were locked in mortal combat are now united in complicit support for a “soft coup” and a resurrection of the doctrine of necessity. The Supreme Court judges realising the gravity of the situation met under the chairmanship of the chief justice to assess how the prosecution of those accused of terrorism could be prioritised and completed expeditiously.
They have, accordingly, agreed on an eight-point plan. Their plan has been summarily shoved aside by the 20-point plan. So much for the rule of law! Will the Supreme Court now accept amendments to the Constitution that are against its “basic structure” and clear intent and purpose?
There has been no collective and public (civil and military) leadership apology to the bereaved families and the nation. No acknowledgement of responsibility — indeed guilt — for bringing about a state of affairs in the country that directly and indirectly made the atrocity possible, if not likely. Our 9/11, no less, have been so many self-inflicted tragedies in our short history including the fall of Dhaka, military surrender and the break-up of the country. There has been the loss of the Siachen Glacier and the fiasco of Kargil.
These militants have become today’s monsters responsible for the school atrocity and murder and mayhem of every kind in Pakistan. Have we responded to all this criminal impunity with a greater concern for national security, governance and leadership? We know the history of inquiry commissions in Pakistan. Even so, why has our suddenly “united” civil and military leadership not immediately sought to “break the mould” by establishing a genuinely independent, repeat independent, and competent commission to inquire into all aspects of how December 16 came to pass?
Such an inquiry should, needless to say, seek to ascertain who bore the greatest responsibility for the political and security milieu, as well as the specific lead-up circumstances including lapses, that resulted in the tragedy. Counter-terrorism in Pakistan has to be part and parcel of a comprehensive state and, indeed, societal transformation process. Yes, this is a longer term effort. But given our truly rotten circumstances, unless our action plan is embedded in a simultaneous commencement of this longer-term and much bigger project, it will lose direction, momentum and credibility very rapidly. Solemn assurances to the contrary are rhetorical and meaningless because outside this broader transformation context they cannot be credible.
Take India. We need to have a predictable working relationship with it despite our continuing and significant differences on Kashmir and other issues. We will need to develop and implement modalities for managing our differences on Kashmir and building essential bilateral and regional cooperation to confront the challenges of the 21st century. Unless we radically rethink our external policy strategies how will we develop a credible counter-terrorism policy?
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan
By arrangement with Dawn
