I don’t want to comment on the investigations being carried out by Pakistani LEAs whether Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) is behind the Pathankot airbase attack, truth will surface shortly provided we realise the extent of role being played by non-state actors thanks to our nation-wide ostrich-like approach. My question is: what is the definition of a banned outfit? Let’s forget Interior Ministry and NACTA websites will ever help you in this regard; you should be grateful if they provide even a list of banned outfits. It’s a fact that JeM was banned in 2002, but does it mean it’s permitted to maintain bank accounts, operate religious seminaries and party offices, maintain an interactive website, publish hate material and jihadi literature, its supporters are allowed to arrange gatherings addressed by leadership?
JeM is such a blue-eyed boy that it didn’t bother to even change its name as its counterparts did after 2002 — LeT became JuD, SSP became ASWJ. Why authorities remained so relaxed towards JeM for that long — because they don’t attack Pakistanis? What an ill-thought Catch-22 scenario. If a banned outfit limits itself to cross-border terrorism, then what about our national mantra of “we will not permit our soil to be used against other countries for terrorism”? Don’t we feel shame repeating this mantra day-in and day-out?
After losing more than 50,000 Pakistanis at the hands of our once-milked snakes, and making a Pakistani link a permanent feature in any terrorist activity in the region and beyond; where do we stand? What’s changed between today and Dec 16, 2014? For me, there is no difference. If the purpose of NAP and constitutional amendment to establish military courts was only to launch Karachi operation, then let’s change its name from NAP to KAP. Why bother about all these embarrassing questions on active but ‘banned’ outfits under the very nose of NAP?
MASOOD KHAN
Jubail, Saudi Arabia
