Day off for Kashmir
February 5th, 2013
Yet another working day has been lost, as we mark Kashmir Day — as we have every February 5 for years. But the fact is that the occasion has lost all meaning. It simply becomes another holiday, tacked on to a calendar which has far too many on it already. Schoolchildren will rejoice, so will many others much older than them, but in reality, all the day means is a loss of working hours and time. Business suffers, as do all kinds of other commercial activities, further wounding an already staggering economy. And it is far from clear how this day, used for leisure, for family picnics or other similar activity, helps the people of Kashmir at all.
Yes, some rallies and marches will be staged. During them, the usual calls will be made for justice and peace in that troubled valley. But people, as a whole, have become detached from these activities. Concern for Kashmir is certainly not very high; nor is there any evidence at all that it peaks on February 5. The reality also is that people have too many immediate concerns of their own to be specially worried about Kashmir and its people. For them, there are too many anxieties based around their own troubles in times of soaring inflation and great political uncertainty. Indeed, surveys in the past have shown only limited interest in the entrenched issue of Kashmir, with people focusing attention on their own plight.
This should make us think about why we mark Kashmir Day at all. Yes, Kashmiri victims of abuse deserve sympathy; the Kashmiris also need to be able to determine their own destiny, as is their right. But will closing shops, offices and educational institutions at home for an entire day really help them in any way? Or will it just harm us? This is something that needs to be thought about with wisdom, given that simply observing yet another holiday does not seem to serve the interests of anyone at all, whether in Kashmir or at home.
Talking to the Taliban
February 5th, 2013
The one thing that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) recognises above all else is weakness. It is constantly probing for vulnerabilities in the state and security apparatus, ready to pounce at a moment’s notice. Tactical concerns guide its every move. This is why the latest offer of peace talks, from TTP spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan, should be dismissed immediately. Previous calls for negotiation have been made only because the TTP felt it needed time to regroup. Under the cover of talks, the Taliban was able to buy time and then, as soon as it had recovered its former strength, it returned to its violent ways. The government should negotiate only if it has the upper hand and feels that talks are the only way to maintain that advantage. Right now, this is not the case.
The preconditions set by the Taliban for peace talks betray what their real agenda is. Ehsan demanded the release of three captured TTP leaders: Muslim Khan, Haji Umar and Maulana Mehmood. Muslim Khan was the spokesperson for the TTP in Swat who had called for the families, in particular children, of soldiers to be targeted and killed. Quite how releasing him will serve the cause of peace is unclear. Certainly, his over three years of incarceration are unlikely to have made him any less radical and violent. Haji Umar, also a spokesperson for the TTP, was the man who confirmed that Baitullah Mehsud had been killed in a drone strike and his arrest was of great value in gaining intelligence about the leaders and actions of the TTP. Maulana Mehmood, meanwhile, was a member of the Taliban’s political wing and as such one of the more brutally violent men even within the militant outfit. Releasing these three men would not only be a moral outrage, it would also encourage the TTP in its belief that greater violence is always the answer.
It is also curious that the Taliban have named PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif, JUI-F leader Fazlur Rehman and JI leader Munawar Hasan to act as guarantors that the military will not violate the terms of any negotiation. Conveniently enough, the government and the military are not given the opportunity to appoint any guarantors of their own who can hold the TTP to the same standard. That this suggestion has been made just as election campaigns are about to commence is unlikely to be a coincidence. The three parties are among the most right wing in the country and have favoured negotiations with the Taliban. Now that they have been asked to act as guarantors, another suggestion which the government should shoot down without hesitation, it is likely they will go on the campaign trail and denounce the government for not considering this idea. This will sow further political dissension at a time when unity is essential. Division, it seems, is part of the TTP’s agenda.
Some unlikely support for peace talks is emerging from within the ANP, where K-P Information Minister Iftikhar Hussain said that lasting peace can be secured through talks with the TTP. Hussain has been a stalwart in the fight against militancy, having survived an assassination attempt and lost his son to the Taliban. The ANP, more than any other political party, has been in the frontline of the fight against the Taliban so it is perhaps understandable that it is weary and looking for a way to end this war. Peace talks, however, will only end up prolonging the fight as the Taliban regroup for another day.
There should only be one condition for peace talks to be held and that is the complete cessation of violence. Nearly every day, the TTP attacks the military at check posts and there are frequent bomb blasts and suicide attacks in major cities. So long as these continue unabated, it will be impossible to trust the Taliban when they call for peace talks. We also have to ask ourselves what our ultimate goal is. Do we want to maintain the status quo, where the TTP rules large swathes of territory or disarm them forever? Peace talks will only ensure the former.