In what appears to be a response to US President Donald Trump's New Year "gift" to Pakistan, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has prohibited all companies from donating cash to Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the charity wing of the banned outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba. This also applies to other individuals and organizations named in a comprehensive list of banned outfits by the United Nations Security Council, although government sources insist that this decision was taken at the last meeting of the National Security Council headed by Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. The SECP has prohibited all companies from donating cash to the entities and individuals listed under the Security Council's sanctions committee's consolidated list. The list also includes the names of Lashkar-e-Taiba itself, the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation and the Pasban-e-Ahl-e-Hadith and Pasban-e-Kashmir. On the first day of 2018, the federal capital's administration immediately acting on the directives of the SECP, issued orders prohibiting fundraising activities by organizations and individuals that are named in the UN watch list, or banned by the government of Pakistan itself, for having links with terrorist activities. Newspaper reports point out that these outfits raise funds by placing donation boxes in markets and other public places, holding events, and displaying advertisements and banners. They have been found to be involved in social, political, welfare and religious activities.
The developments at the start of the year are profound insofar as Pakistan's economic and strategic interests are concerned. The new situation reinforces the argument that the policies that subsequent governments have pursued since the late 1970s in relation to Afghanistan and Indian-occupied Kashmir were strongly characterized by deep flaws and pitfalls. The SECP directives only demonstrate a knee-jerk reaction of a country that has been overly relying on the US, considering it one of its principal allies. Unfortunately, our policymakers failed to appreciate the criticality of a bigger picture that had emerged following the election of two far-right leaders in the world-Narendra Modi in India and Donald Trump in the US. Even after the victory of Trump in the US presidential elections in 2016, Islamabad remained overly confident about the future of its ties with Washington, merely since the Republicans have been seen as showing greater appreciation of Pakistan's strategic importance than the Democrats. But we were mistaken. Not only is the new Republican administration headed by Trump holding Pakistan responsible for Washington's own failures in Afghanistan, it is also advocating India's case the growing unrest in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. As stated by one of Pakistan's former ambassadors to the US, Senator Sherry Rahman, Washington has fully embraced India's anti-Pakistan narrative. Trump's growing belligerence gives credence to rumours that the US administration would shortly be demanding custody of the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, Hafiz Saeed, whom it has already declared a "global terrorist." A twofold blow and double setback for Pakistan.
The country is left with no option but to jettison all its so-called "strategic" interests without any further loss of time. Our policymakers must revisit their policy of mainstreaming or appeasing Jihadi outfits as their relatively strong performance in two by-elections last year has not contributed to the country's geopolitical interests at all, deepening suspicions about Islamabad's intentions in relation to militancy and extremism. Islamabad must sell with new vigour its narrative that it only extends political, moral and diplomatic support to the just struggle of Kashmiris against Indian occupation. This will require it to clearly distance itself from the current wave of militancy that has seriously threatened India's illegal occupation of Kashmir through a chain of actions. Seen through the global prism, this approach will certainly add to the legitimacy of Kashmiris' struggle. Though the SECP directive is a step in the right direction, it is too little and too late. Our policymakers must not lose sight of the fact that even the best of our efforts towards courting Russia as a new strategic partner will be stymied by Moscow's Chechnya challenge that allegedly derives its strength from militants based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is therefore a need for further speeding up the anti-militancy effort in order to protect and preserve the country's national interest.