Fighting terrorism

The choice before the government, and the people

There are no two opinions about the fact that terrorism is the most formidable challenge confronting the country and unless checked in its tracks without further loss of time, might jeopardise the very existence of the country. The onus of dealing with this detestable phenomenon basically lies with the sitting government, who has a constitutional obligation to protect life and property of the people and to eliminate all kinds of threats to the integrity of the country, emanating from internal and external fronts. The phenomenon of terrorism in Pakistan is now well over ten years old and its unabated continuation and spillover from the tribal areas to big cities of the country, particularly Karachi is a cause of great concern and anxiety for the people of Pakistan, and rightly so.

Reportedly there have been 220 acts of terrorism in the country since June 5, 2013, and more than 25 in the last twenty days including attack on security personnel in Bannu and the one near the GHQ gate in Rawalpindi which claimed lives of more than thirty security personnel and civilians. These incidents have built tremendous pressure on the government to take a decisive action against the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. The media, intelligentsia and even the politicians who supported and backed the government initiative for the resolution of this scourge through dialogue, are now castigating it for its alleged indecisiveness and even timidity in taking a clear cut position against the tormentors of the masses and enemies of the country.

There are however strong indications that the government is revisiting its earlier stance and a strategy is being devised to hold dialogue with only those elements who are amenable to negotiations and take military action against others who continue challenging the writ of the state through their acts of terrorism. The first indication of change of mind came when immediately after recent attacks Pak Air Force jets bombarded hideouts of the terrorists in North Waziristan, killing 33 terrorist including an important commander of the TTP. Steps are also in the offing to revamp intelligence apparatus and even to create Rapid Response Force.

Conscious of the fact that eliminating terrorism not only requires military action and other administrative measures against the terrorists but also removing lacunas in the law to make sure that the terrorists are made to pay for their anti-state activities, the government has made certain amendments in the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO). These amendments empower the law and security agencies engaged in fighting terrorism to detain any person accused of terrorist acts for an indefinite period and not to reveal their whereabouts or the locations of the detention centers even to the courts. The amendments will also cover the detention of the persons detained by the agencies prior to the amendments in the PPO. It is perhaps due to the foregoing measures that the TTP after feeling the heat has again made an offer for a dialogue to the government. How serious they are and what will be response of the government, will become clear in the near future when the government after a new round of consultative process finally comes out with a consensus strategy to deal with the situation.

The irony, however, is that the same elements who used to cry hoarse from every convenient roof top to take umbrage at the government for its indecisiveness and lack of courage to take the bull by horns, are now critical of the government moves, especially the amendments made in the PPO, terming it infringement upon the fundamental rights of the citizens and giving draconian powers to the security agencies, who allegedly are likely to misuse them. A national daily in its editorial has branded the move as a codification of the lawlessness of the security agencies that the PPO is likely to encourage. According the editorial the government has devised a novel solution of the missing persons case. The paper feels that the state wants to keep its power to act as it pleases; to stave off any challenge to its authority from the courts. The court has also indicated to examine these amendments from a legal perspective.

It is indeed amazing for a newspaper to term the actions of the security agencies dealing with an extraordinary situation that poses an existentialist threat to the country, as lawlessness and not to say any word of condemnation for the terrorists who have killed thousand of citizens and are determined to bring down the edifice of the state. Their acts are also against the Islamic teachings which forbid taking up of arms against the government of an Islamic country by its citizens. History is replete with nations dealing with such situations through extraordinary steps. Almost all the constitutions of the world have provisions for suspending fundamental rights of the citizens to deal with mutinous situations. The question one may ask is, are the terrorists doing something legal and constitutional to deserve legal protection?

The integrity of the state is of paramount importance and any individual or groups of individuals posing a threat to its integrity deserve to be dealt with sternly. By taking up arms against the state they lose their fundamental rights, as rights of individuals within a state are contingent upon their allegiance to the state. One of the reasons why many of the terrorists apprehended by the security agencies, including the ones who masterminded the attack on Sri Lankan team in Lahore, have not been convicted is the existence of lacunas in the relevant laws which make the conviction of the criminals through courts extremely difficult. These flaws also undermine the capability of the security agencies to apprehend the culprits and extract required information from them about their activities and their handlers. Italy and Sri Lanka did not eliminate terrorism through courts and normal law enforcing measures. The media, intelligentsia and the courts have to realize that it is not a normal law and order situation we are dealing with, where fundamental rights of the citizens and criminals cannot be denied to them. How can the elements killing citizens, challenging the writ of state and rejecting the constitution be treated in conformity with the fundamental rights granted by the constitution?

The government has shown enough flexibility by extending an olive branch to the terrorists in the hope of amicable solution to the conundrum aimed at avoiding bloodshed and if that initiative has not been responded in the same spirit then it needs to be supported in quelling this phenomenon by whatever means it deems fit.