Dialogue or surrender: What will it be?
By Athar Minallah

The entire political leadership of Pakistan unanimously signed the APC declaration, which has left an already confused nation even more confused. Our leaders discussed an enemy they claim to have fought for 10 years but were too shy to name it. And the same enemy appears to have been legitimised as a ‘stakeholder’ of Pakistan. Is this a declaration of surrender or has the elected leadership resorted to the despicable ‘law of necessity’?
Pakistanis are not against dialogue, but not on the terms of those who do not recognise the Constitution or the sovereignty of Pakistan. The statements of political leaders are evasive, thereby misleading the nation. As a citizen of Pakistan, I was under the delusion that I was a stakeholder. Instead, the title is being conferred on those who have killed innocent people, defamed Pakistan and destroyed its economy. Therefore, I feel that I have a right to question my elected leadership, in the hope of some reassurance.
At the time of the APC, were you not informed that the ‘nameless’ enemy was a banned terrorist organisation? At least for face-saving, the notification should have been withdrawn, before declaring them legitimate stakeholders.
You say that holding the dialogue will be within the Constitution? Article 256 declares “any private organisation capable of functioning as a military organisation” illegal. Did no one point out that an invitation to dialogue will be a violation of the Constitution, unless the enemy, sorry ‘stakeholder’, is disarmed?
I was taught that Islam is built on one premise: that the preservation of life in every form is crucial. And that granting pardon to a killer is the sole right of the heirs of the victims. Before signing the declaration, did you not consider Article 2A of the Constitution, since you were about to legitimise the killers of over 50,000 innocent Pakistanis? Did you seek the permission of the heirs of the innocent citizens and brave soldiers who were martyred? Did it not occur to you that such a despicable act in the name of Islam is surely blasphemy?
Some of you believe that the reign of terror is a reaction to drones. Then why was the APC declaration so mild on drones? Why didn’t you declare the US an enemy state or say that Nato supplies will be stopped till drone attacks end? Or that no political leader will visit the US and that US visas would be surrendered? Instead, you decided to take the matter to the UN for trips to the US. Were you unaware that taking a matter to the UN is akin to surrendering state sovereignty? And by the way, a simple question: what came first, drones or terrorism?
Despite the anti-US rhetoric, the opening of an office in Qatar is quoted as an example to justify dialogue. Are you not aware that the US is negotiating with a stakeholder of Afghanistan, which ruled that country for four years? The US initiated dialogue from a position of strength and neither is US territory nor are US citizens at the mercy of that stakeholder.
Some of you believe that if we can have negotiations with India, why not with ‘them’? So, by analogy, a group of armed murderers are being elevated to the status of a sovereign state. You seem to be oblivious to the forms of dialogue. When states negotiate from a position of weakness, it is a dialogue for settling the terms of surrender. Such a dialogue took place in December 1971 and the rest is history. Since the APC declaration, ‘they’ have carried out an onslaught of attacks, which they have proudly owned and you termed it a conspiracy to sabotage dialogue.
You inform us that many groups of ‘stakeholders’ are funded by Pakistan’s enemies. Doesn’t this require great caution rather than being desperate to negotiate? If peace is the only goal, regardless of the honour of Pakistan, then why not offer them public offices?
I was expecting the APC declaration to be a reflection of Jinnah’s Pakistan and the actions of the enemy interpreted and condemned as inhuman and un-Islamic. Instead, it reeks of Zia’s Pakistan and I fear we are being betrayed and fooled, a repetition of what has happened in the past 65 years. I plead with you to bury Zia’s Pakistan once and for all. Pakistan has bled at the hands of self-serving, incompetent and mediocre rulers for long enough. They have played games, which has brought Pakistan to its knees begging for mercy. The games have to stop and I await your assurance.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2013.