Apologists of the Taliban

The state of denial, as spin and conspiracy theories abound

Javed Ibrahim Paracha blames the media for demonising the Pakistani Taliban. The militants, he says are not allowed to present their point of view on the media. The TTP is not anti-Pakistan. It is instead willing to spill its blood for the defence of the country. Paracha is a strong advocate of talks with the terrorist group. He says, he does not represent the TTP, but once the talks commence everything would be sorted out peacefully.

Paracha is a widely known sympathizer of Al Qaeda, a defence counsel of the anti-Shia militant networks and a former PML-N MNA.

The PTI’s information minister in KP, Shah Farman is another supporter of talks and accuses those who express doubts about their success as working on the US agenda. There is no need at this stage to identify the militants groups to be included in talks, he insists. There is no need to demand allegiance to the constitution or renunciation of violence as a precondition for talks either. All that is needed is good intentions. Everything will be resolved when the two sides sit together.

Farman, who defeated ANP’s Khushdil Khan in May elections by a narrow margin, recently replaced Shoukat Yousafzai as PTI information minister. Unlike Paracha, who is a hardboiled egg, Farman has the optimism of one wet behind the ears.

When questions are asked about the two preconditions spelled out by the TTP – release of its thousands of killers and evacuation of the army from all tribal areas, Paracha says the TTP never made these demands. He refuses to condemn the recent killing of an army general and several servicemen by the TTP. It is yet to be determined who killed the general, he says, darkly hinting at the possibility of the American involvement in the incident. He claims he respects the present army under Gen Kayani. The Taliban do not destroy schools, he says, nor do they attack mosques or imam bargahs. They have never committed a suicide attack. During the last twelve years, 35,000 Pakistanis including more than 3,000 soldiers have been killed. While the Talban have officially owned several major attacks, their apologists remain in a perpetual state of denial.

All newspapers carried TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid’s telephonic statement on Sunday owning up the killing of Maj Gen Sanaullah Niazi. The statement and its implications were widely discussed on TV channels while several newspapers published editorial comments on the incident and the TTP’s preconditions for talks. “If the government does not take these two steps, the peace process cannot go forward,” Shahid put it quite plainly.

The TTP spokesman put up the two demands as if he was dictating terms of surrender to a vanquished army. The TTP did not care to contradict or clarify the statement by its spokesman. While Paracha is in a state of denial, Ansar Abbasi, another dyed-in-the-wool TTP supporter is somewhat on the defensive. In his latest column he called upon the TTP to stop attacking the army. His argument: The militants need to be reined in to thwart the groups and forces that are out to sabotage the dialogue.

Courtesy the induction of the PTI in the National Assembly in sizable numbers, the Taliban have now a voice in the lower house. The PTI’s MNA from Mardan, Abdul Mujahid Khan, demanded during the budget debate in June that Taseer’s murderer Mumtaz Qadri “should be released honourably”. Like the PML-N leaders, Imran Khan too has consistently avoided naming the TTP for being responsible for terrorist attacks. Only two days after the killing of the GOC, Swat a reluctant Khan admitted that the attack by the TTP on Pakistan Army could prove to be a setback for the peace talks process. This was the first time he had accused the TTP by name. A day earlier the PTI leadership had only condemned the attack and offered condolences to the bereaved families and praised the services of the armed forces, without a word about the perpetrators.

Ansar Abbasi is one of the well known defenders of the TTP. Abbasi rejects democracy now agreeing with the militant outfit that khilafat alone suits Pakistan. He maintains that the ‘secular elements’ have no right to demand that the TTP first announce its adherence to the constitution. The ‘secular elements’ in this country, he maintains, do not accept the Objectives Resolution which forms the preamble of the constitution and are keen to introduce changes to make the constitution secular. So what if the militants also do not accept the constitution?

Abbasi fails to understand that unlike the Taliban those who want a secular constitution do not take recourse to violence in pursuit of their objectives. The constitution needs to be amended from time to time to keep it in sync with the changes in social mores and advancement in thinking. It is not therefore unusual for sections of society to differ with certain provisions of the constitution. The difference between a responsible citizen and a terrorist is that the former argues his case patiently, moulds the public opinion in favour of his views and seeks the change through constitutional means while the latter orders the society to accept his ideas or be prepared for annihilation.

In a free society everybody can challenge any idea, belief or law, provided he does so through peaceful means. Any organisation which takes up arms, irrespective of its political orientation or ideological moorings, to change the constitution has to be dealt with through force, be it the TTP or the Baloch militant outfits. Talks can be held only with those who are willing to renounce violence and agree to live as peaceful citizens.

Abbasi also questions why proponents of talks with India, which is an enemy country, raise their hackles when it comes to talking to the TTP.

Pakistan has had three wars with India which should not have taken place. Unless there is peace between the two countries, their social and economic progress will be hindered and poverty will not be alleviated. The TTP is a collection of armed groups which had managed to establish themselves in the tribal areas and at one time were in virtual control of Swat and most of the tribal agencies and regions. They had set up states within a state which no sovereign country can allow. Military action had to be taken to establish the writ of the state. The army has won back Swat and the South Waziristan and established the writ of the state in a number of agencies. India is a sovereign country while the TTP and its affiliates are outlaws. Differences with other countries are resolved through talks and with violent non state actors through use of force if other means fail

While extremists praise militancy they are opposed to freedom of discussion and debate which betrays their lack of trust in the strength of their own ideas. This is best exemplified by Maudoodi’s call for pulling out the tongue of anybody preaching socialism in the late 1960s. The extremists believe that anybody who has a strong argument must be silenced by force to stop him from ‘misleading’ the people.

The PML-N government may take recourse to talks to appease the extremists present in its ranks but it would however fail to bring the major chunk of the militants to the mainstream. Those believing in imposing their views through force will never agree to go seeking votes from those they consider riff raff.

The writer is a political analyst and a former academic.