The apparent death of TTP chief Hakeemullah Mehsud in a drone strike in Miramshah is sure to be seized upon by many as a turning point in the war against militancy. Such speculation may be premature until the ramifications of this killing become clearer. Hakeemullah has been pronounced dead three times before, in 2009, 2010 and 2012 but reappeared each time, although we can be reasonably confident this time that the group will soon have a new leader. It is already being reported that the TTP has now confirmed the death and has also appointed a new leader. The more important consideration is whether Hakeemullah’s death will end up changing anything. When Hakeemullah’s predecessor Baitullah Mehsud was taken out in a US drone strike, it had no discernible impact on the TTP’s ability to plan and carry out strikes. This, indeed, is what critics of drone strikes have pointed out all along. Targeting individuals brings scant advantage when dealing with a group with as many members as the TTP while the civilian cost of drone strikes only helps them recruit even more people to their cause. Add to that the question of sovereignty and you can see why the Foreign Office condemned the drone attack and will likely not take back that condemnation even though it will invite ridicule and scorn from those who support drone warfare.

One outcome of Hakeemullah’s death can be that it will spur a leadership battle within the TTP. In recent months, as the TTP fired its spokesman and also sidelined Muawiya, the leader of the Punjabi Taliban, we have seen that the TTP is not a unified entity so much as a loose coalition of militant groups with different aims and strategies. Should these groups be divided in the aftermath of Hakeemullah’s killing it could end up weakening the TTP. There is also certain to be a lot of confusion about the status of negotiations with the TTP now that the outfit doesn’t have a leader of Hakeemullah’s stature. Already the matter has been shrouded in some confusion with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif insisting that talks with the TTP have begun, something the militant group itself denied. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar had in fact announced just yesterday that a three-man delegation of negotiators will leave for initial contacts with the TTP today. After the drone strike he blamed Washington for sabotaging the peace talks. If the government is indeed serious about negotiations it should now capitalise on Hakeemullah’s killing and begin talks with those in the TTP who are as amenable to the idea of negotiations as he was. The security forces should also brace themselves for a wave of retaliatory attacks, as happened after Baitullah was killed. The US may have killed him but we will have to deal with what comes next. Only history will judge if Hakeemullah’s killing was a turning point in the war against militancy, but for now we should be prepared for the worst.



The question of how many people have been killed in terrorist attacks will always be open to interpretation depending on how the counting is done. The number of 40,000 dead has often been used, although this figure seems to also include the militants killed in military operations. Independent researchers have put the casualties at around 20,000, although even that estimation must be taken with a grain of salt since they tend to rely only on media reports that rarely follow up on how many of the injured later lost their lives. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has now waded into the debate after telling the Senate that 12,404 people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 2002. More controversially he claimed that only 191 people had been killed in terrorist attacks since June of this year. That assertion incensed Senator Zahid Khan of the ANP who rightfully pointed out that nearly a hundred people had been killed in the Peshawar church bombing alone and that these figures were obviously unreliable. Nisar’s haughty demeanour after being aggressively questioned precipitated a walkout from the opposition parties and the filing of a privilege motion against Nisar. That Nisar had also provided a figure of 281 people killed in response to another senator only goes to show how unreliable his data was.

Nisar tried to absolve himself of all responsibility for the figures by claiming that the numbers had been provided to him by the provincial governments. This attempt at excuse-making should not stand. The fight against terrorism is being led by the federal government and the military and so they should have accurate information about the damage being wrought by the militants. The government also has a role in paying compensation to those who have been injured and to the families of the dead. If it does not have accurate information on casualties how can the government be trusted to pay out this compensation? Nisar also did his credibility no good by asserting that only 67 civilians have been killed in drone attacks, with close to 97 percent of the fatalities being militants. Nisar’s counting bears no resemblance to the work done by independent organisations, which even in their most conservative estimates believe that civilian casualties are in the hundreds. According to reports, the Foreign Office has denied the veracity of these figures, making us wonder if there is even an iota of coordination between the different departments of this government even on matters as important and critical as this. The situation is ridiculous in the extreme. The interior minister, it seems, is part of a government effort to distance itself from criticism of drone attacks after it was reported that the government had always been briefed by the US on these attacks. Amnesty International had also pointed out that the government does not compensate victims of drone attacks nor does it provide them with any other kind of assistance. Lowballing the number of civilian deaths could be used as a way to justify their callous indifference. Either way, Nisar needs to return to the Senate and provide more detailed breakdowns of all casualties. A government that cannot even keep track of its innocent dead is not a government that can inspire any trust.