Has popular media allowed Taliban apologists to waltz onto centre stage? Are they a graver threat than militants?
If the prime minister’s insistence on talking to the Taliban, along with the blatant, religious-right tilt of his negotiating team, raised disturbing questions about his preferred counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, the talks about the talks, especially on popular electronic media, seem to have removed any remaining sanity from the exercise.
And in entertaining the mulla lobby and its apologists on prime time talk shows, mainstream media has allowed extreme right tendencies to snatch centre stage, much to the concern of lesser radical segments of society.
The talks initiative was a surprise to begin with, coming after weeks of clear indications of military action in North Waziristan (NW). Then the PM’s team was an instant give away – representing factions sympathetic to the Taliban to talk to a group openly advocating Taliban ideals. Then came the sharia-or-constitution confusion, with Molana Aziz ruling out talks prior to countrywide imposition of Taliban reading of Islamic law and Molana Sami claiming otherwise. And then more contradictions; PM Sharif expecting “good news” from the Taliban the same day news reports of the latter praising Mulla Fazlullah’s khalifa credentials came out, etc.
And since the first fortnight of talks featured more than an attack a day, the overwhelming presence of religious clerics, and their press and political sympathisers, on mainstream media is stoking doubt about the real forces pushing for talks, and their intentions.
The apologists
Clerical circles, including political parties like JI and JUI, have long lobbied for a stricter religious outlook of society than the constitution has allowed. They shared Islamabad’s fondness for Afghanistan’s Taliban regime of the ‘90s, and continued to promote their jihadi cause even after the Musharraf regime’s about turn after 9/11.
This cleavage widened after the ’07 Lal Masjid operation, when militant government proxies housed in Punjab rebelled and joined the TTP, and the insurgency subsequently spread deeper into the country’s settled areas.
In the years since, secular society outcast Molana Aziz and company as representing militant groups at war with the state, clearly lumped with the TTP’s sharia-or-else crusade. And religious segments, outraged at the operation, trumpetted him as a symbol of resistance to western-backed tyranny.
Clerical circles, including political parties like JI and JUI, have long lobbied for a stricter religious outlook of society than the constitution has allowed. They shared Islamabad’s fondness for Afghanistan’s Taliban regime of the ‘90s, and continued to promote their jihadi cause even after the Musharraf regime’s about turn after 9/11.
And right-of-centre religious parties, stretching between maintaining political relevance and sharia affiliations, were in a constant state of to-and-fro. Munawar Hasan defended his “martyr” title for Hakeemullah Mehsud, then got the Jamat to praise the military’s sacrifices. He even coined the term “living martyr” for Hafiz Saeed for his presence on America’s hit list. Molana Sami, when first charged by PM Sharif to talk to the Taliban, claimed the TTP was not at war with the state but rather at war to defend the state. All the while these groupings maintained ties with Molana Aziz, whose claim to fame was not the Lal Masjid incident, but an earlier fatwa barring Islamic burials for the military’s martyrs in the war on terror.
And these ties have come to the fore after the prime minister’s peace initiative. Molana Aziz is on the Taliban’s negotiating team, and graces TV screens for a couple of hours every day. Molana Sami, on the same team, also comes in daily doses, dragging public opinion further to the right. But these voices would not have mattered if not for other, more mainstream forces.
“These molanas were always secondary voices with little relevance”, said Saifullah Mehsud, executive director at the fata research centre, an Islamabad based think tank with special focus on the insurgency.
“But they have been given prominence by political forces favouring negotiations, notwithstanding the Taliban’s continuing aggression against the state”.
The PTI’s posture since the May ’13 general election, and chairman Imran Khan’s personal comments specifically, seems to have played a central role in creating political confusion that put proponents of use of force on the back foot. And with the youth his party galvanised to campaign against corruption and tax evasion instead blocking nato supply routes and condemning drone strikes, the TTP-as-victims image began gaining prominence.
This confusion allowed other voices, especially from within the media, to spin the TTP’s suicide attacks and minority persecution as part of greater efforts to promote a more Islamic society. Had it not been for the PTI’s long campaign in defence of militants as wronged tribesmen, Molana Aziz and the like would never have been able to imply on public TV that 50,000 lives is a small price to pay for sharia.
“With his wave of support prior to the elections, Imran could have come out very strongly against militancy, with the youth firmly behind him. But he seems to have a very different political agenda”, added Mr Mehsud.
Imran Khan has also angered the military, most recently by the revelation of PM Sharif’s concern (allegedly briefed by the military) that the army is only 40 per cent capable of carrying out an operation in NW.
“Nonsense!” said COIN officials, requesting anonymity. “The army has been losing men and material all the while this talk of talks has been going on”.
The PTI’s posture since the May ’13 general election, and chairman Imran Khan’s personal comments specifically, seems to have played a central role in creating political confusion that put proponents of use of force on the back foot. And with the youth his party galvanised to campaign against corruption and tax evasion instead blocking nato supply routes and condemning drone strikes, the TTP-as-victims image began gaining prominence.
Rather than being unprepared or unwilling, the military believes it can sweep through the region in a matter of weeks. And while the implied timeline may be a little ambitious, there is no mistaking the intent in COIN circles.
“The military is subservient to the polity. So let them play out the talks, before we move in for decisive action,” they added.
The Media
Dominant electronic media has long been accused of simply gathering and presenting information, foregoing the most important component of news management – processing information. And right through the war against terrorism, it has concentrated on sensationalism, which is one reason why much of the public is still confused about the state and place of militancy, morality and sharia in society.
And as the government put its weight behind talks, media pundits believe they made the logical decision to project the position of the other side.
“Don’t forget they (Taliban committee) are genuine stakeholders in the negotiations”, said Arshad Sharif, prominent prime time talk show host at one of the leading private channels.
“These actors have been legitimised by the state, and once that stamp of approval comes, the media is only doing its duty by giving them room”.
While other senior presenters were unavailable for comment, Mr Arshad Sharif believes there is nothing sensational about how the media is handling these negotiations.
“The debate these days is as important as it is interesting, it is about the very identity of the state”, he added.
And if that means bombarding public opinion, already shaky, with radical Islam of the type created to program proxy militants since the days of the Soviet jihad, then so be it. Even if it implies ignoring the one-sided makeup of principal negotiating parties, and accepting complete absence of the worst persecuted religious and sectarian minorities, who have lost most since bomb blasts first announced the TTP’s campaign for sharia.
He did, however, agree that “if the media steps out of its circle of observing, analysing, and reporting, it is simply not doing its job”.
So far, these efforts, supposedly following government policy, have given those in active war against the state equal representation, as equal stakeholders, even as the TTP’s militancy has grown right through the talks.
