VIEWPOINT: What Shahbaz said

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif's alleged remarks at the anniversary event of Mufti Mohammad Hussain Naeemi's assassination have touched off a storm of anger indignation all over the country. He was quoted to have said that the Taliban should spare Punjab since they and the PML-N were opposed to both General Musharraf's and the US' policies.
The party's rivals in the National Assembly took the Chief Minister to task, demanding an apology from him. In a dramatic gesture in the NWFP Assembly, PML-Q member Nighat Orakzai tried to portray him as a weakling, throwing away her duppatta so he could wear it, like a woman (displaying thereby her own bias about women being incapable of acting as strong leaders.)
Ordinary people and detractors alike asked, how could he say that Punjab should be spared? Does that mean it is alright for the terrorists to target innocent people in other parts of the country? How come the Punjab government and violent extremists had a common cause? Still others did not know what to make of his remarks.
Shahbaz Sharif is not just chief minister; neither is he the leader of a provincial party such as the MQM in Sindh and the ANP in NWFP. He is president of the country's main opposition party, and is believed to have been nurturing prime ministerial ambitions, too. Even if he didn't care, he could ill afford to alienate Pakistanis living in other parts of the country. There had to be an explanation for what he said.
Some wondered maybe he was under too much strain because of a string of devastating terrorist attacks that hit Lahore in the recent days. Some reasoned that deep down the Sharif brothers share with the Taliban a narrow minded, retrogressive worldview. And that the truth came out in an unguarded moment.
The transcript of the CM's speech is unavailable, but television footage different channels later played of his remarks told a different story. Responding to a question, he was shown to begin by saying that General Musharraf planned the bloodbath of innocent Muslims at the behest of 'outsiders' (the US) only to prolong his rule, but that the PML-N opposed his policies. He then went on to predicate the following part of his answer on two or three 'ifs'.
It went something like this: the PML-N opposed the former military dictator's policies and rejected dictation from abroad, and that 'if' the Taliban's logic is ... 'if' they say this... 'If' this is their argument that they are fighting against the US, then they should not carry out terrorist attacks in Punjab. Basically, he was trying to counter the violent extremists' position statement, not to plead with the terrorists: Please, don't attack my province because I and my party support you.
The episode is a reminder that serious journalists must never let go of the rules of objective reporting, which demand that statements, especially involving as sensitive a subject as the present one, are recounted in such a way that the real sense of what has been said is conveyed fully and accurately.
Still, from a politician's perspective, the issue was too serious to be discussed even within the confines of a purely academic argument. No matter who supports or opposes whom, it is an outrage against civilised sensibilities to kill innocent civilians or policemen and soldiers defending the state and its people.
PERIOD: It is true that the Afghan Taliban have a legitimate cause in fighting against foreign occupation. The extremist violence we face everywhere is a blowback from the same fight. But the ruthless barbarians, who have been beheading Pakistanis, including members of the security forces, and indiscriminately killing civilians are unfit even to be called human, let alone rebels with a good cause.
Those who took over Swat and Malakand, and beheaded people, hanged bodies in the city square to terrorise the populace, and publicly lashed women to deliver their own brand of dark justice, certainly were not fighting against imperialism, but to establish - and later expand - an emirate of their own.
Those who have been indiscriminately killing people - men, women and children - in Punjab and other parts of the country, are also driven by sectarian hatreds. There is a nexus between sectarian terrorists and the TTP, which comprises diverse groups such as anti-American jihadis, angry tribesmen, who have lost their kith and kin in American drone strikes, and most dangerously, al Qaeda cohorts.
This last category has a special interest in promoting violence and disorder in this country so as to use the same to hide itself, and advance al Qaeda's international agenda. What is going on here is not simply an anti-American jihad; it is much more complex and includes sinister elements.
Unfortunately, both the PML-N and the PPP have been pandering to sectarian groups. Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer made a big issue out of it when during the recent by-elections provincial Law Minister Rana Sanaullah was reported to have been fraternising with the leader of a banned sectarian outfit in order to win his electoral support.
Yet a few days later, the Governor himself was seen sharing space, at his party's election meeting in Bahawalnagar, with a senior leader of the same banned outfit. Lest anyone thought the leader in this case was a dissident, he himself explained in a TV programme that he went to the PPP meeting with the approval of his superiors, and further that there was nothing unusual about it.
He disclosed that his group had been lending support, on a case by case basis, to candidates from both parties. At an earlier time, General Musharraf too courted sectarian leaders. Whilst he introduced all sorts of rules and regulations to keep many regular politicians from participating in the two general elections he presided over, his government not only allowed the imprisoned leader of a banned sectarian organisation to contest a National Assembly seat, but also sought his help to have Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali get elected as prime minister with just one vote majority.
Contrary to credible reports about activities of 'Punjabi Taliban', the Punjab government denies their existence in the province. These jihadis and the sectarian militants are not interested in liberating Afghanistan; they have an agenda for Pakistan. Then there is the issue of foreign money supply to Madressahs, which are known to serve as recruiting grounds for the extremists.
Some of them may be genuinely engaged in imparting religious education, many others have different objectives. The least the government can, and must, do is to track the trail of the money, reports say, they receive from foreign sources. Banning of this or that organisation will not help, meaningful control measures will.
Most component groups of the TTP will become history once the US leaves Afghanistan, but the Punjabi Taliban, sectarian militants as well as Madressah indoctrinated students and alumni will continue to cause death and destruction in Pakistan unless mainstream politicians like Shahbaz Sharif are prepared to recognise the truth for what it is, and deal with it effectively. [email protected]