Does not everyone say that war alone is not the solution to the problem of militancy or terrorism, and that a two- or multi-pronged effort is required to effectively deal with it? What exactly is meant by this? Well, there is no dearth of answers: Some say that we must look at the root cause of the problem and try to remove it. Is it poverty and deprivation? So let us start more job-creating projects, open more schools, give people more say in governance in their areas and so on.
Is it anger against the injustice towards fellow Muslims, by powers with whom our rulers are seen hand in glove? So let us review our relationship with such powers and try to influence their policies or distance ourselves from both. Is it the failure to provide quick justice to the people of the area in question? So let us see if the current system of dispensing justice can be made fairer, quicker and cheaper.
Is it corruption of the public-dealing departments and officials, which is making life difficult for the people and making them disillusioned with the present rulers? So let us take urgent action against the corrupt and relieve people of a constant irritant in life. Is it our failure to live upto the ideals for which Pakistan was created? So let us, at long last, show some resolve in fulfilling that promise. And so on and so forth.
Some others would like to initiate a dialogue process with the more reasonable among the militants with a view to reducing the size of the problem. They point out that except for the people who call themselves the TTP, there is no organised group among the militants - at least none that have a public face or have been identified as a distinct group so far. Lumping all the Taliban together under the misnomer of "militants" or "miscreants", attempts to simplify a problem which is not simple. True, it "saves" the rulers the hard work involved in really going deep into the matter to get first-hand information about all the diverse groups that conveniently, though incorrectly, are given the Taliban misnomer.
In any case, whether it is the need to identify the causes of the rise of militancy in the country and the need to do something about them, or whether there is a need to talk to some groups of the Taliban to isolate the more hard-line culprits, it is the government (that is the civilian part of it) that appears to be dragging its feet in this - that is, in tackling the most serious problem confronting the country today.
About improving the quality of governance as a means of countering anti-government feeling, the less said the better. The rulers are so bogged down in one mess after another of their own making, and so beleaguered with charges of corruption, which are not getting unstuck, that they are unable to think of anything other than their own survival.
As for recourse to starting a dialogue process by Pakistan with some of the Taliban, some moves were made in the past during Musharraf's rule and again in the early months of the present civilian rule, but they came to nothing because of the shameful duplicity and hypocritical attitude adopted by the US and the subservient attitude of our own rulers, past and present, towards American diktat. Whenever any move was made by the authorities in Pakistan towards a dialogue process, it was met immediately by an active, even belligerent opposition by the US.
On one such occasion, the then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, had chided our rulers with the remark: how can you talk to people who should be actually fought against and punished. The succeeding American administration under Obama has continued the same policy. What is particularly criminal is what the US did on several occasions as soon as the dialogue process appeared to be making some headway. On some of these occasions, the militant leader (with whom a dialogue was successfully concluded or was in an advanced stage) was killed by a secret agent (there are many around the country, thanks to our lax attitude towards espionage) or simply eliminated by a drone attack, which also killed a number of innocent people.
Remember Nek Mohammad (among many others)? Remember Damadola (Bajaour)? Remember Miranshah in North Waziristan (among dozens of other attacks of the kind)? Just a few examples that come to mind! What is particularly infuriating about this phenomenon is that while the US tries by all means, fair or foul, to prevent rapprochement efforts between the government in Pakistan and the militants, it is itself engaged in feverish activity towards its own rapprochement with the Taliban.
According to a November 24 news item, "US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has confirmed that Saudi Arabia has initiated a dialogue with the Taliban and that the United States would support any Saudi initiative. Separately, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan government's talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously".
This was however a digression. We were commenting on the very uneven participation between our military and civilian entities in the "war against terror". While the involvement of the military in the effort is total and it shows in the way the Army, under Kayani, is going about the serious business in hand, visiting conflict zones, trying to look after the morale in an admittedly difficult war, difficult because of who the "enemy" is, difficult because of the nature of the terrain and difficult because of the daily sacrifices our jawans and officers are making, in terms of numbers martyred and wounded on Pakistani soil and against Pakistani people. It was General Kayani and not President Zardari who assured the Mehsud people that they were not the target of military action, but only the miscreants among them.
Again from the civilian side, no person with high authority has thought it necessary to address the nation on serious problems like rampant suicide attacks, the direction and progress of the war-effort in progress in the tribal areas, the question of our waters being illegally appropriated by India, the state of India's involvement in acts of terrorism and sabotage in Balochistan and elsewhere and on what, if anything, the government is doing about them, on the NRO mess and a series of scandals associated with our ruling class and so on.
These weaknesses and defaults by the civilian, elected government have left the Army without the support, participation and direction it needs from the elected government. In fact, the vacuum of authority has enabled the Army to throw its weight around, for instance in the matter of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the restoration of the judiciary and a number of, as yet unknown matters of which rumours keep floating from time to time. Who can blame it for recognising and responding to popular perceptions?
(owajid@yahoo.com)